Atheism is Rational?!?

The idea of Atheism breeds personalities that are often bland, angry, hostile, adamant, arrogant, condescending, and in all honesty: berserk.  I know, I used to practice this faith. :)   

Why do I call it faith?  

Simple:  Atheism fosters the rejection of the existence of a deity without empirical proof just like theists foster the existence of a deity without supposed empirical proof.  Each respectively uses faith to support their ideas.  

When an atheist is questioned about God, their answer is the typically programmed one:  the burden of proof rests on you.  This is a cowardly way out of engaging in a rational debate.  If only one side presents the case, then how can there be a fair discussion if a discussion needs two sides?

The burden of proof lies on both: the one denying God and the one defending God.  After both sides are given, then a conclusion can come about.  

On Twitter when Atheists message me with nonsensical tweets, I laugh and in my mind hear their silly tweets like this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ss2hULhXf04   

No purpose?

What is life without purpose?  What is the point of living if we have no reason to?  

These are questions one may expect from a person with depression or who is suicidal.  However, these are questions we all should ask.

Why are we on Earth?  Why do we exist?  

To the believer, we exist to know, love and serve God and love our neighbor as we love ourselves.  To the atheist, life is just a coincidence of the material universe.  It has no purpose, no end and that is that.  Life is shrunk down to cosmic probability.

Without purpose the existence of human beings is not rational.  The fact that we are on this world orbiting the Sun in a galaxy that is within a vast space we call the universe, have a will, conscience, intellect shows we have a purpose.  We are here for something or someone.

Each human person has a distinct mind, distinct taste, distinct way of seeing things intellectually.  Why?   

How can  non sentient cosmic probability in the universe come out with conscience plurality?  Each life on this planet, human or non human serve a purpose.  Bees pollinate, bacteria and viruses control population, and so on.  The ant is a perfect example.  These tiny creatures live only to serve a "queen."   Without a queen, the ants just perish slowly.   The same happens when we reject God.  We have no purpose.  We are born and just die, nothing special.  This idea opens the door to abortion, euthanasia, violence, eugenics, licentious drug and sexual lifestyles.

• Who cares if we kill human offspring in the womb?  They don't have purpose.  

• I am the one that matters since I only live once.  

• Why allow people who are sick, disabled and old to live?

• Let's just euthanize them and put them out of their "misery."  

• Why have peace if it's my life over yours?  

• We are just here to survive nature nothing more.  

• Since we have no purpose, why not mess around with genes and make people or animals into our image?  

• Since we just live and die, why not use all drugs, have all kinds of sex, even sex with our same gender?  

• There is no one we have to answer to since we just appeared on Earth by "chance."     

Scary huh?   Let us pray for all those who feel they do not have purpose.  May God show them that they were created to love and be loved.  Amen

Twitter discussions - Birth Control/Sex

@magnetist Maggie Hornick

@Sacerdotus ...preventing teen pregnancy and STIs. Teens who take abstinence pledges are actually more likely to have sex at younger ages.
@Sacerdotus Guess what really DOESN'T work & should be defunded? Abstinence-only sex ed. Stats show that comprehensive sex ed's better at...
@Sacerdotus I'm not friends with you on facebook, and I don't want to be. Not sure why you'd respond to tweets on there. @MySide_YourSide
@magnetist Maggie Hornick
@Sacerdotus What are you talking about? It DOES work. When used correctly, most major contraceptive methods work over 99% of the time.
@ magnetist Maggie Hornick
@Sacerdotus You're incredibly ignorant, sir. Teen pregnancy began rising again when people began this abstinence-only sex ed BS. #prochoice
@Sacerdotus @surpassthepast @katsworld500 @magnetist Not all parents know enough to teach it.
@Sacerdotus Some people turn to sex work because they feel they have no other options. They would leave the industry if they felt they could
@Sacerdotus The victims and law enforcement officials. Not the church, which has a history of cover ups
@Sacerdotus When did I ever say sex was the "be all end all of life"?
@Sacerdotus How is accurately depicting the life experiences of teens "advocating" for the behavior? "Skins" shows many downsides to it.




Sacerdotus replies:

You do not have to add me as a "friend" to view my facebook. This is a page anyone can view; however, in order to respond you have to "like" the page. Well studies have shown that abstinence does work if enforced. It is no different than a drug rehab program or AA. Peer pressure is there of course, but if teens are surrounded by people who will not push sex onto them, they will succeed. The realization of the consequences of pregnancy and STD also help. When teens are made aware that sex is just not about pleasure, and that there are consequences EVEN with contraception - because it is not 100% safe- they will make a drastic change. Planned parenthood is a business. It is not interested in kids, women or the teen pregnancy rate. Instead of helping fix the problem, it is adding to it. Birth control does not work. If it did, then why does abortion exist? Think about it..

When you present condoms and other forms of birth control to youth, you are giving them the go ahead to have sex. This is not the message that should be given to kids. It is like saying to a suicidal person, "go jump out the window, but have a mattress on the sidewalk to break your fall." We cannot assume that our youth are mindless animals who run on instinct. They are not. They are human beings with conscience and intellect. When teens have an informed conscience, they will make the right decisions. I ran 2 youth groups and know this first hand. Prior to my life in the Church I also was a teen and had teen friends who were caught up in the sex scene. Those that had a good moral foundation were the ones who succeeded, while those that didn't, got pregnant and/or caught an STD.

I am not ignorant on this because I have worked with youth both in my pre Church time and now. Parents are the primary educators. They are the ones who prepare their children for the world. If they can teach kids how to eat, potty train etc, then why not something so personal as sex? My parents when I was a kid told me everything. They did not sugar coat it at all. With the proper tools - which should be available for free- parents can teach their kids about sex.

Sex work is immoral and degrades the persons involved in it. It does not pick up women. A woman must not think that her body is solely a tool for men to use for pleasure. She is a woman, a child of God, a beautiful intelligent creature that does not need to sell her body to make a living. What will she do when she ages and some may find her unattractive? How will she earn a living? It is better to help sex workers get out of that life. Empower them through education so that they can see that with that diploma they can get many jobs that pay more and have health coverage- something which sex work does not give.

From your tweets, you seem to present sex as a hobby. Something that we just have for the heck of it. That is not what sex is for. Biologically speaking it is for reproduction. We cannot replace its natural purpose for a hedonistic one. The consequences of this hedonistic life we are seeing today: teen pregnancy, STD rates out of control, abortion, etc. The program "Skins" depicts the creator's view of kids. Not all kids live the life that's scripted like on that show.






@katsworld500
Yes just read the stats states led by religious right have highest teen pregnancies
I have grandaughters that will be teens in a few years, I want them to be able to make choices
My biggest problem with Church-they are unmarried "celebate" men giving rules on marriage&sex
BTW when i was a kid 9-10 years old I wanted to be a Nun, that's when they wore the habits,I thought they were cool, LOL
Didn't believe in the Catholic doctrine & spent years studying religion, decided I didn't believe in any of it
I've been married 37 yrs. That means I could have had 36 kids, do you not know anything abt sex &marriage?


Sacerdotus replies:

Well I am not informed on what state has the highest teen rate and how it relates to religious right, but there is evidence that abstinence programs do work. I know being a grandmother is difficult, there are so many pressures your grand daughters will face. However, you after living your life and seeing what the world is becoming should counsel them to focus on school instead of on boyfriends. There is no need for them to rush. Today's society does not let kids be kids. They are forced to "grow up" too fast and that is not good. Later on in life they will develop depression and regrets for not being able to have enjoyed a youthful experience free from sex and other adult issues.

Well celibacy in the Catholic Church is just a discipline. It can be removed. It is not a part of doctrine. The Church instituted that rule in order to prevent families from trying to take land, property and money from the Church. Also, celibacy helps a priest focus more on the work of God.

Yes, back then the nuns did have "cool" habits. :) They are starting to come back now and surprisingly, the orders that bring them back are the ones growing, while the ones that adopted secular clothing are the ones dying out.

The Catholic Church has 2011 years worth of doctrines so I know it is hard to learn all and make sense of them all. I too had issues accepting certain things, but God's will be done, not mine. I was never married, but grew up as a normal teen in the Bronx. :) So trust me, I am fully aware of sex and marriage.







surpassthepast
TX has abstinence-only sex ed, it has the highest teen pregnancy rate in US
yes, but tell me why the same logic does not apply? after all, god himself was very fond of killing
under 13 is pedophilia according to the DSM


Sacerdotus replies:

TX is just one state. What program are they using? Abstinence-only has to be enforced. Teens are susceptible to all kinds of pressures. If they are surrounded by the right people, they will make the right choices. Teens are not stupid.

God does not kill anyone, He takes their life away. How can the artist steal his own work? :) Human life belongs to God. He can give or take. It is referred to as killing to us because mortals do not have the right to take another's life.

The DSM does classify pedophilia as sexual attraction towards those under 13. That is why I stressed that the Church's scandal deals with euphebophilia, not pedophilia.








MySide_YourSide Ryan Young
For the most part, yeah. It's a Christian ascetic they want, abstinence from pleasure.
Why? What makes it immoral?
Absolutely. Total agreement. But that cliff is where the individual having sex determines it is. No one else!



Sacerdotus replies:

Not at all. If you have read Bl. John Paul II's Theology of the Body, he stresses that pleasure is important. However, we must not push for casual sex because it takes away from the conjugal act of sex within a blessed marriage.

Sex work is immoral because it degrades the dignity of the worker. While I understand some might be under the impression that there is not other option, there is. Education is the key. Sex work degrades a woman's character, or a male's. What will the worker do when he she become old and unattractive to clients? It is much better if he/she gets an education. With that piece of paper (diploma) so many doors will open.

about 2 months ago

Personhood: ProChoice’s Weapon of er….Choice - a closer look

Recently, a feminist poster who goes by the name Auragasmic Beth on Twitter who tweets with the #prochoice hashtag has linked me to her private blog. I will give my take on her thoughts and how they fair against science. The post is entitled "Personhood: ProChoice’s Weapon of er….Choice" 

 

The post begins with a quote “If all men are born free, how is it that all women are born slaves?” – Mary Astell This quote attempts to make the implication that men are free, but women are not. That idea can go either way. Not all men are born free either. According to Anti-Slavery International, there are over 20 million people - men and women- who are born into bondage. (http://www.antislavery.org/english/) To imply that only women suffer slavery is erroneous. Women alongside men and children are subject to whatever social condition they are met with at birth. Slavery is not exclusive to the female gender.




<<When confronting a Prolife advocate, it’s always best to forgo the tedious debacle of debating personhood and the sanctity of life. These two issues are intended to distract the Prochoicer, to prove the absurdity of creating a timeframe for essential human rights that the Prolifer believes should be granted at the moment of conception. What the Prolifer fails to acknowledge, however, is that the most convincing Prochoice argument can be made when personhood of the fetus is assumed.>>



Sacerdotus comments:

I disagree. Personhood and life are the heart of the abortion issue. Justice Blackmun himself gave the judicial opinion: “The appellee and certain amici [pro-lifers] argue that the fetus is a ‘person’ within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. In support of this, they outline at length and in detail the well-known facts of fetal development. If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant’s case, of course, collapses, for the fetus’ right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the Amendment.” - Roe v Wade 1973

We are dealing with a serious matter: killing of innocent life. The preborn are slaughtered daily on the grounds that he/she is not a "person." This discriminatory tone is reminiscent of slavery in America where black people were seen as "livestock" or "3/5" human.-(http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part1/1narr4.html) Ironically, this blogger attempts to present an argument regarding the slavery of women, yet ignores the slavery of those not yet born. Who are we to decide who is to be born or not? Who gave us the right to enslave one group over another? Why/how is one stage of human life less important than the others? Those are important questions we must ask in the debate against abortion and slavery.

Men, women, and children born or unborn are equal. They have inalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It is unfair, and immoral to make these rights valid exclusively to those who are in the stages of development that follow birth. Just like it is unfair and immoral to make these rights exclusive to males, or white people only. Personhood does not appear out of nowhere. Personhood is included in the development of every human being. Biology teaches us that human life begins at conception. ("The development of a human begins with fertilization, a process by which the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female unite to give rise to a new organism, the zygote."- Sadler, T.W. Langman's Medical Embryology) We cannot limit personhood to a mere conditional state in life.

Prochoice Professor Mary seller wrote: "I hold a contrary view and believe that to be a human being is not simply to be biologically alive, but also to experience the powers of mind and spirit that are special to human beings. People have the capacity for creativity, emotion, spirituality; they can reason, exercise responsibility, and make moral judgements. Underlying these is sentience, which in turn depends upon physical structures, predominantly, the central nervous system " - (http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/mary-seller-an-embryo-is-not-a-person-629164.html)

Mary Seller is wrong in claiming the capacity for creativity, emotion, spirituality, reason, responsibility and moral judgments are a prerequisite for human life/personhood. Let us take the case of infants and their psychological and sociological development. Infants are not capable of creativity, emotions, spirituality, reason, responsibility or moral judgments. (http://pediatrics.about.com/cs/growthdevelopment/a/child_dev.htm) (Infants and Toddlers at Work: Using Reggio-Inspired Materials to Support Brain Development by Ann Lewin-Benham, Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi) Where have we seen an infant create, express emotions that are not mimicked, pray and so on? There are no instances of this. Nevertheless are they human beings? Well, according to Mary Seller's view, they are not. Let us take on the idea of sentience as a requirement. Object permanence is an example. Infants are not fully aware of the natural world. When objects (living or non living) are away from their perception, they believe that the objects have vanished completely from reality. (http://psychology.about.com/od/oindex/g/object-permanence.htm) If sentience were a requirement of personhood, then infants are not persons because they are NOT fully aware of the natural world or themselves. They are not fully sentient. The biological, sociological and psychological truth is that every human being is a person who develops sentience, intelligence, creativity, emotion, spirituality, reason, responsibility and moral judgment with time and mental/physical development. The only difference is the stage of life in which these are acquired or learned.



The post continues to attempt to debunk another young girl's blog regarding "use of body." The blog post goes on as follows: <<“If the room is stuffy, and I therefore open a window to air it, and a burglar climbs in, it would be absurd to say, “Ah, now he can stay, she’s given him a right to the use of her house–for she is partially responsible for his presence there, having voluntarily done what enabled him to get in, in full knowledge that there are such things as burglars, and that burglars burgle.”


What Thomson successfully illustrates with these analogies is that a woman is very capable of participating in consensual sex without consenting to the use of her body by a z/e/f afterward. It would rightfully be considered unjust to force a woman to continue an unwanted pregnancy just because she possesses a particular organ and biology that allows her to become pregnant. The premise of punishing women for their biological design is especially prevalent in cases where Prolifers insist that a z/e/f resulting from rape should have equal rights to the victim’s body. While equal right to life can be established for BOTH the woman and the fetus, the person providing the housing for the fetus ultimately has the right to decide whether or not she wishes to continue sharing her body – as it IS her body.

It’s important to recognize that while someone’s right to life can be situational or circumstantial (i.e : Capital Punishment) that no single human being is morally obligated to share their body with another person to ensure that person’s survival. For example, if I was dying and my very survival depended upon a kiss from Cillian Murphy, he wouldn’t be morally obligated to provide me with such a gesture. Sure, it would be kind and generous of him to do so, but he wouldn’t be obligated to do so because I have a presumed right to life. Operating under the assumption that all people have a right to life doesn’t guarantee a right to life at another person’s physical, emotional or psychological expense.

In this entry, we’ve established that a woman cannot be held at the mercy of her biological design. In concluding this, we’ve inevitably demonstrated that she is not morally obligated to share her body with any z/e/f that may result as a consequence of her possessing a uterus. So how can someone possibly suggest otherwise? Enter: RABBLE RABBLE Sanctity of Life RABBLE RABBLE. Exit.>>



Sacerdotus comments:


The analogies provided give the idea that a burglar breaking and entering must be entertained by the victim because it is "her fault" that her property was not secure. The blog continues claiming this idea is absurd. However, it is partially absurd. Yes it is absurd that a victim must entertain a burglar. However, it is the victim's fault for not using common sense by protecting her property.

In cases of burglary, the authorities always advise that property security measures be taken in order to prevent theft. Just by entering in Google "police advice to secure home" one will see the many links of police giving advice of how to secure property. These measures can be the installation of cameras, security alarms, window guards and locks. It is pure gumption that in an unsafe world, we must live safely and secure our property. However, this burglary analogy is irrelevant to the issue of abortion. In order for this analogy to have some validity, human offspring must be classified as an "intruder." Biologically and embryologically speaking, that is not the case. A normal female body is designed to house a child within the womb. -(http://www.americanpregnancy.org/gettingpregnant/understandingovulation.html) He/she is not an intruder in the sense of a burglar being an intruder in one's home. The case might be made for children conceived in rape; however, 50% of the genetic material at fertilization are of the woman despite the intrusion of her body by a rapist. One thing must be clear and not be avoided: The conception DID NOT "invade" her or "intruded." It was THE ATTACKER and HIS SPERM that invaded/intruded- that is if the conception did take place.

Feminist rhetoric uses terms such as "consensual sex" and "unwanted pregnancy" in an attempt to mask the reality behind sex and pregnancy. It is an attempt to separate sexual from reproduction. The reality is that the act of sex or Coitus, biologically speaking is for reproduction. All animals in the natural world use sex in order to continue its particular species. (http://biology.about.com/od/basicgenetics/a/aa062708a.htm) Popular culture often pushes the idea that sex is just for hedonistic purposes; however, naturally speaking, that is not the case. Moreover, when 2 adults have sex they must be aware of its function. That is to say, that since sexual reproduction is for reproduction, they must not be surprised if a pregnancy occurs. This is where personal responsibility comes in. According to Prochoice Professor Seller, "responsibility or moral judgments" are requirements for personhood. If these qualities are important for a human being to be a "human being," then why are they ignored when it comes to consensual sex? It is a contradiction. The entire Prochoice ideology is a contradiction. There is no such thing as an "unwanted pregnancy." The real term is, "unwanted responsibility."

Now there is the mention of rape. Yes rape is an intrusion into one's body. However, once again Feminist rhetoric attempts to separate the nature function of reproduction when pertaining to conception and the crime of rape. Both are not synonymous. Conception will happen if the biological conditions are met regardless of whether sex was consensual or not. Therefore, we cannot conclude that a conception stemming from rape is an intrusion or invasion. As I mentioned before, 50% of the genetic material at fertilization are of the woman. The real issue here is not the conception, but the crime. Why punish this conception who has no fault of the crime?

As with the burglar analogy, just like police tell us to secure our homes, so too do they advice women to use self defense in order to thwart attacks. Again, the phrase "police advice to prevent rape" entered into Google will bring about many links showing how to defend oneself. It is interesting to note that men are also victims of rape. However, men cannot abort anything. So what then? How can a man gain back his "bodily autonomy?" Is this exclusive to women only? The reality is that abortion solves nothing. An innocent conception is killed, and the rapist moves on knowing any conception he instigates can easily be killed. This empowers sick individuals to continue raping because rape fuels the delusion of power. - (http://www.yale.edu/ynhti/curriculum/units/1981/3/81.03.06.x.html) The answer to rape is not abortion, but rather; self defense, education, and better policing. Less than 1% of all abortions occur because of rape or incest according to
(http://www.abortionfacts.com/online_books/love_them_both/why_cant_we_love_them_both_29.asp). So obviously, rape cannot be a big issue in the abortion debate since it happens rarely.

The post continues claiming that "woman cannot be held at the mercy of her biological design." That is a falsehood. Women at different intervals before menopause have their menstrual cycle. This menstrual cycle or "menstruation" maintains homeostasis with the goal of fertilization. (http://www.womenshealth.gov/publications/our-publications/fact-sheet/menstruation.cfm#a) However, this cycle brings about much discomfort such as: weight gain (perhaps secondary to overeating and/or water retention), headache, palpitations, fatigue, dizziness, bloating, tenderness and swelling of the breasts, constipation, or diarrhea. - (http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/513070) In light of biology, we cannot conclude that a "woman is not at the mercy of her biological design." This menstrual cycle cannot be shut off until menopause. Menopause is the point when a woman's ovaries stop producing eggs, her body produces less estrogen and progesterone, and menstruation becomes less frequent, eventually stopping altogether. -(http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedhealth/PMH0001896/) This happens from age 45 to 55. In order for the conclusion that - "[a] woman cannot be held at the mercy of her biological design" be valid if indeed a woman has total absolute control of her body. This of course is not possible in the natural world. We all are subject to nature. While we may be able to move our bodies, give them nutrition and so on, nature always supersedes our so called "bodily autonomy." Bodily autonomy as prochoice see its, only exists in the imagination of the prochoice advocate and radical feminist.




<<For anyone who still suffers from the fanatical delusion that life is sacred, I cordially invite you to visit Sudan, Congo, or Somalia. A quick vacation in one of these spots should cure you of any fantasies that persuade you to believe life is in any way, shape or form, sacred.>>


Sacerdotus comments:

Life is not a delusion; however, thinking that human life is dispensable is. The blogger is correct in mentioning countries where human life is oppressed. Those people in those nations must be defended as well. I agree in that we all should visit those nations and realize why life is sacred and must be protected from conception to natural death. We will realize that when we attempt do define who is a person or who has a right to life, then that is when we will see events occur in the world such as those in Sudan, Congo, and Somalia. Before prochoice can attempt to destroy slavery, it must free its mind and heart from the slavery of ignorance and rhetoric.

about 2 months ago

Twitter - Prochoice

Some old Facebook/Twitter discussions from Summer 2011:




RealtinConnor Realtin Connor
RT @heathen_chick: @Sacerdotus what is feminist rhetoric? When a woman talks? Or when a woman is right? Please explain that one.

LadyAtheist
@Sacerdotus Please let me know when you come up with a definition for "feminist rhetoric". I'd love to hear it.



Sacerdotus replies:
Feminist rhetoric is what is used to push the idea of abortion with the main premise of "rights." Biology and Embryology are completely disregarded as mere "opinion," while terms such as: "reproductive rights," "protection/self defense," "bodily autonomy" are used to replace them as "fact" and solely relevant to the discussion. Feminist rhetoric brings forth the erroneous ideas that a preborn child is a "clump of cells," or a "bag of cells." We all know that Biology and Embryology do not support this claim. Furthermore, the idea of "it is a woman's" body is also pushed by this rhetoric. Again, based on biology and embryology, a human female carries a child within her womb that has a different blood type, body, DNA, and even gender - if it is not a female child. This idea puts a woman against child. It destroys that natural and "sacred" bond. A child becomes an accessory to have when the time seems right. Feminist rhetoric also presents men as the enemy,-"Man is trying to control me and my body." This is again erroneous because the choice to have children comes from the woman and man together. Responsibility and gumption are to be taken into account. It is absurd to have sex knowing the possible outcome and then abort the child on the grounds that a woman has the right to do whatever with her body. So basically, a child must die so the woman and man can do as they wish- mainly to engage in a hedonistic sexual lifestyle. Another idea of feminist rhetoric is that which claims that a fetus does not have a right to be in the womb. Once again, biology and embryology disputes this. The bodies of males and females are built to reproduce. A woman's pelvis, uterus, fallopian tubes,ovaries and vagina are specifically designed to bear human offspring. The menstrual cycle of a woman is specifically designed to release an egg so that it could be fertilized by sperm. To deny this is to deny science. So that being said, of course a zygote, embryo and fetus have a right by nature to be there. No one has a right to kill him or her.






magnetist Maggie Hornick
Aww, poor @Sacerdotus... He must have given up because all us meanies were bullying him with our "feminist rhetoric." #feminism #prochoice


Sacerdotus replies:
I did not "give up." I merely stated that I would not engage feminist rhetoric. Only biology and embryology will convince you that prochoice supports is the killing of a human being. You will that prochoice has no backing whatsoever apart from feminist rhetoric.







Ms_UK_American ♕American♚Briton♛
Love how @Sacerdotus RT everything I said except for the tweet where I said I've gotten hate mail/death threats from prolifers. #prochoice

Sacerdotus replies:
Well both sides have their "overzealous" types. I too have been attacked verbally and physically by "prochoice." It is sad when people resort to violence to get their points across. 


about 2 months ago




Well from your post you seem very angry, so angry that you make a ridiculous comment about staying away from kids. If you were up to date on facts regarding pedophilia, you would learn that abuse occurs more among married men than clergy of any faith.

Moreover, you would also learn that the scandals pertain to the issue of ephebophilia, not pedophilia. I would invite you to do research before you spew hatred and ignorant remarks on posts.

The biology behind reproduction cannot be denied. Our bodies are designed with specific organs which serve specific functions. To deny that a female's physiology is not meant to carry offspring is absurd and it is sad that you would disregard science in place of sexual liberty rhetoric. I never wrote that women HAVE to have children. I do not know where you got this idea from.

Biology does not state that any organ is designed for pleasure. These ideas stem from those who wish to pervert nature for their own personal gain. The evidence that there is a natural bond is self evident in ovulation, conception and the 9 month gestational period. I used the word sacred with quotations to highlight a different manner of viewing this bond based on one's morals.

The rest of your post is nonsensical and present feminist rhetoric. Your views are responsible for the continuation of unplanned pregnancy, STDs, and abortions. When personal irresponsibility takes over, then self destruction follows.

Birthcontrol does nothing to help this. Birth control has done more damage than good. Teen pregnancies continue to rise, the HIV rate continues to rise. It is ridiculous to push ideas that do not work. Common sense, self control and personal responsibility are what do work. Anyone who has drinking issues or drug addiction are not adviced to continue using these vices in order to fix their habits.

Rather, they are told to ween themselves of their addictions. You cannot combat promiscuity with promiscuity. Hedonism will get us nowhere. Your views will continue to hurt society as a whole. People are waking up to this nightmare. That is why abortion clinics are closing and more states are adopting abstinence only programs. The horrors of the 60's so called sexual revolution are slowing being undone. As baby boomers and their kids die off, so too will their strange radical ideas regarding sex, pleasure, life and reality.

It is sad that you feel you know better than science and medicine. This attitude highlights your sophophobia towards the facts and reality. Open your mind and heart to truth, instead of your ego with hedonistic thoughts.

• <<When a Man says he's a Man of GOD, has the public persona that he is Good and Faithful to God, you cannot compare HIS actions to the average person. Sorry You Cannot. I've seen that rhetoric about "issue of ephebophilia, not pedophilia" That's a LIE but that doesn't even matter. Making excuses for priest to FORCE sexual advances on ANYONE, I don't care how old they are, is dispicable. There have been 100s of cases involving UNDERAGED boys AND girls. And if you think it's A-OK to FORCE sex on a 15 Year old, you ARE sick.>>
  
  Sacerdotus replies:
  
  All men and women are men and women of God. "Man of God" is not an official legal title for any Catholic clergy. The issue of ephebophilia and pedophilia are not rhetorical. CUNY's John Jay College conducted research and found that over 80% of abuse cases dealt with teenage boys, not young boys (prepubescent). This is ephebophilia. Ephebophilia is a sexual attraction towards teenagers. If you wish to discredit this institution which prepares students for work in Criminal Justice, then that is on you.
  
  I was never making excuses for anyone. Whatever the crime is called; whether statutory rape, ephebophilia or pedophilia, it is a CRIME. Any priest, Catholic or any adult who molests, sexually abuses, and/or rapes a minor is a criminal and sinner. Let me be clear on that matter. Furthermore, any superior or bishop who hid these crimes by not reporting them is also a criminal and needs to be removed, arrested and prosecuted by local laws. I think we both can agree on this.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  <<That said....
  "Biology does not state that any organ is designed for pleasure.These ideas stem from those who wish to pervert nature for their own personal gain"???
  LMAO!!!!What biology books have YOU been reading? Never mind, I don't NEED a Book to tell ME about the functions of a WOMEN'S body parts, since I AM A WOMAN.>>
  
  
  Sacerdotus replies:
  
  Biology is the study of life, not sex. I think you took the wrong college course. :) All joking aside, no biology book goes into detail regarding sexuality and/or pleasure. They just highlight the function of sex organs and sex whether sexual or asexual.
  
  Well education is there for a reason. Education is supposed to change our behavior and way of thinking. Of course a prisoner doesn't need education, but I am sure if he/she would have gotten a good one, he/she would have behaved better and avoided the handcuffs.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  <<(: I LOVE "Hedonism " LOTS and LOTS of "Hedonism " & "strange radical ideas regarding sex, pleasure, life and reality." That's why I've been married for 37 years To a WONDERFUL Hedonistic Guy! That's why I have a beautiful HEALTHY Marriage. That's why I have a beautiful HEATHY Family.>>
  
  
  Sacerdotus replies:
  
  Well to a certain extent I like hedonism when it comes to music and sports. :)
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  <<"As baby boomers and their kids die off'? LOL I'm a babyboomer, so are my 6 brothers & sisters,inlaws, friends, cousins, etc- all with kids , grandkids, greatgrandkids. Who's dying off? I don't know a single solitary person personally who agrees with YOUR Catholic Rhetoric, and I come from a Catholic Family. The older generation in my family in their 70-80s don't either. My 80 yrs old Catholic Aunt is even prochoice. She said the Church has gone too far and needs to get out of politics.>>
  
  
  Sacerdotus replies:
  
  Everyone dies off eventually. We are mortal. Older generations get replaced by newer ones. The ideas of the past which messed us all up will slowly fade into history. Well your Catholic friends and relatives are "Catholic" by name only. As the late Cardinal O' Connor said, "The Church is not a salad bar, from which to pick and choose what pleases you." You either take it all, or go somewhere else. Why be a hypocrite? It is like being an American, collecting social security and at the same time being a terrorist attempting to kill Americans. Catholics are open to have any views; however, in order to be a Catholic you have to accept all dogmas and doctrines.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  <<The rest of your post is CATHOLIC CHURCH RHETORIC = Men who know nothing whatsover about Sex, Relationships,Life, Childbirth or Raising a Child(or at least they're not supppose to since they VOW to Celebacy)>>
  
  
  Sacerdotus writes:
  
  Well naturally, I will defend the Church's position, so my posts will have a Catholic viewpoint where applicable. It is erroneous to claim that men in the Church do not know about sex, relationships and life. We all come from the same planet Earth. We all had childhoods, girlfriends, even wives. Some clergy are even married. It is ignorant to generalize without realizing the fact that the Catholic clergy are composed of men of all walks of life, who have different pasts.
  
  We have lawyers, psychologists, teachers, scientists, doctors, politicians, converts, reverts; you name the profession - we have it among the clergy. Unfortunately, outsiders have this false view that priests were born priests and never had girl friends, love lives, sex lives, professional lives etc. Priests do not make a vow of celibacy. They promise to their bishop to be celibate. Religious priests make vows of chastity, poverty and obedience.

  about 2 months ago · 
  

   · Report · Delete Post
• 
  

  Sacerdotus

  <<Kathie Layman Clark
  I only have one thing to say...there are MORE Catholic Hypocrites than Practicing Catholics (ie birthcontrol) which eventually will bring down the church if they don't change>>
  
  
  Sacerdotus replies:
  
  
  In order to make such a claim, you would have to have met and observed all 1.1 + billion Catholics. Granted, not all Catholics follow their faith to the letter due to poor catechesis; however, those few do not represent the entire Church community.

  about 2 months ago · 
  

   · Report · Delete Post
• 
  

  Sacerdotus

  <<Kathie Layman Clark
  
  The average U.S. Catholic family is about the same size as the national average, around 2.6 people, according to the Pew Forum's U.S. Religious Landscape Survey. The fact that polls show about eight in 10 Catholics are OK with artificial birth control might have something to do with that.>>
  
  
  Sacerdotus replies:
  
  Polls are subjective to those who are asked. A poll of 10 people does not represent all Catholics.
  
  
  
  
  <<Kathie Layman Clark
  
  The average U.S. Catholic family is about the same size as the national average, around 2.6 people, according to the Pew Forum's U.S. Religious Landscape Survey. The fact that polls show about eight in 10 Catholics are OK with artificial birth control might have something to do with that.>>
  
  
  
  Sacerdotus replies:
  
  Catholic women who do not have well formed consciences will abort unfortunately; however, those who understand the gravity of killing human life, do not. I cannot discuss Newt Gingrich or any individual because I am not aware of their private lives.

  about 2 months ago · 
  

   · Report · Delete Post
• 
  

  Sacerdotus

  <<Kathie Layman Clark
  Actually 35,000 American adults were polled in Pew Forum's U.S. Religious Landscape Survey. Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan "FACT tank" that provides information on the issues, attitudes and trends shaping America and the world. The Pew Research Center does this by conducting public opinion polling and social science research; by analyzing ; and by holding forums and briefings. It does not take positions on policy issues.FACT>>
  
  
  Sacerdotus replies:
  
  35,000 people does not represent millions of Catholics. Most likely those who were polled are lapsed Catholics. The media has its way of manipulating things to push its agenda.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  <<<Kathie Layman Clark
  So now you think you can dictate a person's conscience? What gives YOU the authority or your Church?
  
  and you don't have to know Gingrich's private life...He was married 3 times. His second marriage included CHILDREN. that's not private info. That's FACT The Church allowed him to annul that marriage That's another FACT>>>
  
  
  
  
  Sacerdotus replies:
  
  Who said dictate? That is a word you added to my statement. The Church's mission is to turn minds and hearts to Christ. Christ is not a conservative, liberal, or radical; neither is he democrat, republic or socialist. These terms are man made in order to cause division among humanity. As for Mr. Gingrich, I was not there and do not know the facts. An annulment is not easy to obtain. It costs hundreds of dollars and a serious investigation must take place.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  <<Kathie Layman Clark
  With the loss of the Papal States in 1870, The Vatican urgently needed a new source of power.
  A group of conservative and influential leaders, including Pope Pius IX, came up with a brilliant idea for a new source: an infallible pope. According to Catholic dogma, when the pope formulates a doctrine, he is simply transmitting this dogma on God’s behalf. Therefore, the teaching cannot possibly be in error.
  In 1964, Pope Paul VI created the Papal Commission on Population and Birth Control. It was a two-part commission and met from 1964 to 1966. One part consisted of 64 lay persons, the other, of 15 clerics, including the future Pope John Paul II, then a Polish cardinal. Pope Paul gave the Commission only one mission—to determine how the Church could change its position on birth control without undermining papal authority. After two years of study, the Commission concluded that it was not possible to make this change without undermining papal authority, but that the Church should make the change anyway because it was the right thing to do! The lay members voted 60 to 4 for change, and the clerics, 9 to 6 for change
  Since the 1968 adoption of the papal encyclical, Humanae Vitae, there has been a hemorrhage in the Church’s credibility. Humanae Vitae ruled out any change of the Church’s position on birth control for all time.Church cannot change its position on birth control without undermining all of its dogma.>>
  
  
  Sacerdotus replies:
  
  
  Papal infallibility has always existed. However, it was not an official dogma until Franciscan Peter Olivi expanded on it and the idea was declared as such later on. In the 400's Pope Leo the Great wrote 'By the power of the Holy Spirit he needs no human instruction and is incapable of doctrinal error.' The idea was always there since the beginning of the Catholic Church. In order for infallibility to be valid, certain conditions must be met. The Pope cannot just say anything and it will be infallible.
  
  The issue of birth control is tricky. The Church has 2 choices: let go of all teachings or keep its teachings. Which do you think the Church will always stick to? Keeping its teachings of course. The Church cannot delete or change what God has revealed. No Pope, no Bishop, no Priest can tamper with the deposit of faith. The Church is clear on what healthy sexual life is and the purpose of sexuality. To give in to the world's radical ideas on sex would be a total failure on the part of the Church. The Church is supposed to turn hearts and minds to Christ. When that happens, people change. We do not dwell within ourselves as the be all end all. We start to see that this world does not matter, that our real world is with God. Birth control contradicts God and the purpose of our bodies. We are supposed to be fruitful and multiply. That is the command God gave Adam and Eve. If we allow birth control, then we are basically telling God NO, we ARE GOD, WE DECIDE when life comes. Birth control turns sex from an expression of true love that brings life into a vice. It becomes a drug that we need. If we don't have it, we become frustrated. That is not what sex is all about. We cannot alter this beautiful gift of love. Nor can we exclude life. Birth control harms women and destroys families. It is a license to behave promiscuously. Teen pregnancy rates are continuing to rise despite "safe sex" measures. HIV rates are rising as well. Birth control/STD prevention is not working. There is no way the Church can allow birth control without forsaking its mission. In Europe Muslims are taking over because the native Europeans are not having children. Eventually Europe will be an extension of Islam. If radical terrorists hijack these nations, we are all in trouble.
  
  
  
  <<Kathie Layman Clark
  BTW "Granted, not all Catholics follow their faith to the letter due to poor catechesis" Catholic Doctrine or Catechsis ??
  My Mom went to Catholic School. She also worked as a bookkeeper for Catholic Charities for years. I not only studied Catechism through 12 th grade I also studied religion
  
  "those few do not represent the entire Church community"
  There are several groups of Catholics, Catholics4Choice,CatholicsforaFreeChoice-, that proves there aren't just a "few".http://www.cath4choice.org/news/pr/ProchoiceCatholicsApplaudCourtVictoryonAccesstoContraception.asp
  Actually I don't know a single Catholic, and I know many, that agrees with the no birthcontrol rule.
  I think you may want to change YOUR perception?>>
  
  
  
  Sacerdotus replies:
  
  Catechesis is the transmission of doctrine to others. Learning the faith is not enough to be converted. One needs to internalize this knowledge through prayer. I can learn everything there is about God or religion, but if it doesn't internalize then it is no good. That is what happens to some priests. They learn and learn, and they do not grow spiritually. They are tempted to fall into clericalism.
  
  The groups you mention are not Catholic. They are dissident groups that use the title to confuse people. If you do not accept all the teachings of Christ and His Church, then you cannot call yourself Catholic; that is a deception. I have worked in many regions and met literally thousands of Catholics. I have only met about 4 who felt the Church needed to change. The rest were faithful.

  about a month ago · 
  

   · Report · Delete Post
• 
  

  Sacerdotus

  <<Kathie Layman Clark
  " An annulment is not easy to obtain. It costs hundreds of dollars and a serious investigation must take place."
  That was MY POINT, for enough money & political favor you can get the Church to change the rules
  
  
  God NO, we ARE GOD, WE DECIDE
  
  We make decisions every day. Medicine alone contradicts God. We transplant "his" organs, We save "his" lives from death.And if you're going to say, he gave us that knowledge, then you would have to admit he also gave us the knowledge for Birthcontrol & Abortion...Both BTW immitate Nature(god)more than any other medical procedures..Are We Playing God? No, we're playing Humanity
  You can't pick and choose what "God Laws" you like and which you don't ..picking and choosing bible verses to fit your closed minded thinking just make YOU the hypocrite.
  
  We start to see that this world does not matter, that our real world is with God. Birth control contradicts God and the purpose of our bodies. We are supposed to be fruitful and multiply. That is the command God gave Adam and Eve.
  
  Adam and Eve??
  Sorry I don't believe in Fairy Stories, and what happened to your SCIENCE? LOL
  
  And I live in the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, you know? FREEDOM OF RELIGION, FREEDOM FROM RELIGION =KEEP YOUR RELIGION OUT OF OUR LAWS, Simple
  
  
  
  "We start to see that this world does not matter, that our real world is with God"
  
  Good, you stay with your God, and leave my world a lone, Simple
  
  
  "In Europe Muslims are taking over because the native Europeans are not having children. Eventually Europe will be an extension of Islam. If radical terrorists hijack these nations, we are all in trouble"
  
  OH NO THE MUSLIMS ARE TAKING OVER THE WORLD!!!!!
  LMAO... YOU BIGOT!!!!
  
  "radical terrorists" ??? People like YOU are the radical terrorist
  
  
  'Learning the faith is not enough to be converted"
  YES it is,I converted...You" learn and learn" then realize...THIS IS BULLS***!
  That's Why I AM an Atheist, see how easy that is>>
  
  
  Sacerdotus replies:
  
  We are God? Really? Tell that to the Japanese who are suffering from the earthquake and Isunami. Tell that to all the people in the world dying of HIV, cancer and heart disease. Tell that to the USA and Europe who are facing the greatest recession in western history. Tell that to those suffering from the floods caused by Irene. In reality, we ARE NOT God. If we were, we would have full control of all of these events. We do not. It just takes an inch of water to drown you or I. A simple spider or snake bite that is venomous is enough to remind us that we are not God. Your feminist rhetoric has given you a false sense of grandiose. You are woman, I am man; in the end we both will be dust. We are not Gods.
  
  
  Whether or not God gives us the knowledge for medical discoveries does not make that knowledge immune from human error. Did not Adam and Eve have the 2 trees: one of life and the other of knowledge? The knowledge is not what is bad, it is how we use it. Any knowledge we may receive from the Divine is meant to do good and sustain life, not end it or prevent it. This is common sense. What good is medicine if it is to kill?
  
  The rest of your post is ridiculous. You state the stories of the Bible are fairy tales without proof. You deny Israel, a country that has its foundation in the Bible. How can a real nation exist if the story surrounding it is a fable? America's idea of freedom of religion was meant to avoid the tyranny of the Church of England over the other groups. There is no such thing as freedom from religion. Our Forefathers never thought of that. God is in our laws because our founders were believers. If you have a problem with that, then move to Cuba or China. Religion is a main fabric of America. Without it, America will fall. Whether you like it or not, religion is here to stay. We will be burying you before you bury us. :)
  
  
  It is obvious that you are not aware of the reality of Islam and how it is influencing Europe. Before you make ridiculous statements, I urge you to study on the issue before commenting. Here is a start:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1544238/Islam-is-taking-over-says-Dutch-politician.html
  
  Radical Islam does exist. These people, just like radical feminists have a twisted perception of reality. They hijack ideologies for their own purpose which is to do harm for self gain. Islam is a beautiful religion of peace. Radical Islamists use it to do harm. I am not a radical. I am faithful to the Church Christ founded. You are just an angry woman. The years of suppression by men has gotten to you and now you are ranting. You now exhibit the typical superiority complex radical feminists are known for and for which they are not taken seriously.
  
  You missed out the part of internalizing. Faith is not about memorizing things. It is a way of life. You obviously did not learn enough to grow within. I was the opposite of you. I was an atheist. Like you I also had strange ideas about life and everything. But I matured. :) Now I am a believer who returns charity, humility to the angry bigot.
  
  
  
  
  <<Kathie Layman Clark
  I guess your Pro-life stance is only for "CHRISTIANS" (Catholic- even better?) I mean.. who cares if those "terrorist" Muslims get abortions ?? You better rethink YOUR idea of HUMANITY You're just another Hypocrite- Bigot, just like most of the Pro-AntiWomanChristianLife Movement>>
  
  
  
  Not at all. Prolife is for everyone who values life. If you do not value life, feel that life is dispensable and are tokophobic, then prolife is not for you. Eventually you will change just like Roe of Roe v Wade did. :) There comes a point in life when one cannot defend the indefensible. There is no justification for the killing of human life in or outside the womb.

  about a month ago · 
  

   · Report · Delete Post
• 
  

  Sacerdotus

  <<n't HE have "full control of all of these events"?
  There you go again with the Adam& Eve, Unless they were Apes, no such thing. Science has disproved the whole Genesis BS
  
  
  "You deny Israel, a country that has its foundation in the Bible. How can a real nation exist if the story surrounding it is a fable?"
  Israel didn't become a nation till 1948
  Santa Claus was based on Saint Nicholas from Myra ( part of modern-day Turkey). are you saying Santa isn't a fable?
  
  The Bible is a LOT of trying to explain the unexplained -Science has answered a lot of that, which makes all that part of the bible moot, a little bit of history wriiten 50 to 100 years AFTER any of the events happened, so No eye witness wrote any of the bible. A Hell of a Lot of Pagan beliefs, in fact, Most of it.
  
  All that crap about our Forefathers is just that, crap I can site you hundreds of writings of our forefathers that say differently.
  
  Your whole tirade about Islam is just plain Bigotry,there are MORE Chritain Terrorist than Muslims. Especially in this country.
  
  
  " The years of suppression by men has gotten to you and now you are ranting. You now exhibit the typical superiority complex radical feminists are known for and for which they are not taken seriously."
  
  LMAO Oh yes, I'm a radical Feminist who hates Men ..I'll tell my husband that, he'll get a chuckle I'll also drop a note to the 6-9 men who use to work under me.I Love Men. You're not a Man
  
  
  You don't value Life, You've proved that in with every word you've written>>
  
  
  Sacerdotus replies:
  
  
  Isn't it obvious He does? We definitely do not have control of this world. Science has never disproved a thing. Your suggestion is based on ignorance and assumption. Science is not concerned with disproving any religious beliefs, its concern is to explain the natural, not the supernatural. Archaeology has found evidence of many Biblical sites. -(http://www.jpost.com/Travel/AroundIsrael/Article.aspx?id=236432) Furthermore, there is evidence of an "Eve." -(http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/08/100817122405.htm) Israel was always a nation way before the west took form. It was invaded many times and in 1948 was recognized officially as a sovereign state. Santa Claus has nothing to do with Catholicism. I do not understand what connection he has with the Bible. The Bible mentions the Earth is round way before Columbus or any satellite in space has given us photographs of the planet. Until you really study the Bible, you cannot dismiss it. You can learn much about it and see how it has shaped history. It was the first book every printed. It is sad that you would reject something so precious, not only to faith but to academia. Each book of the Bible was written at different times, but by the same author. They were witnesses to the events and wrote them down. The Pentateuch was written by Moses himself for example. There is no way for groups such as Jews and Christians to develop so strongly if the events of the Bible were not true. They would have been cast away centuries ago.
  
  The fact that the forefathers included God in many laws and government documents disputes any writings you may take out of context. The reality of Islam growing is not a tirade. You are just not up to date with current events. Christians did not bring down the World Trade Center, it was radical Islamic terrorists. Osama Bin Laden, the world's most hunted terrorist was not a Christian. He was a Radical Muslim. Where have you been since the 80s? This is common knowledge that anyone should be aware of by now.
  
  Your anger shows well. "You're not a man," what is that all about? It is childish. You are a product of the affects of male dominance. Judge me all you want, but I will never agree that killing human life is a right. If you feel that defending human life is not valuing life, then you need to seek professional help - with all due respect.
  
  
  
  
  <<Kathie Layman Clark
  BTW have You been "fruitfull and multiplied"? I do believe your god was talking to man too. How many kids do you have 5, 6, 20 ?>>
  
  
  The command of being fruitful and multiplied must be carried out with prudence. God did not intend to fill the entire earth with people. Not all are called to have physical children. Others are called to have spiritual children.
  
  
  
  <<Kathie Layman Clark
  I'd like to comment on one more thing
  " If we allow birth control, then we are basically telling God NO, we ARE GOD, WE DECIDE when life comes. Birth control turns sex from an expression of true love that brings life into a vice. It becomes a drug that we need. If we don't have it, we become frustrated. That is not what sex is all about. We cannot alter this beautiful gift of love. Nor can we exclude life. Birth control harms women and destroys families. It is a license to behave promiscuously."
  
  
  This is pretty stupid, even coming from YOU. I and my 6 brothers and sisters all used birthcontrol. We have ALL had long happy marriages. Our children are all grown now and they also use birthcontrol and All have long happy marriages and families... small families.>>
  
  
  From your posts it is obvious you are not a happy person. You feel the need to belittle people and their beliefs, suggest strange ideas in an attempt to feel good about yourself. Your verbatim shows your hurt. I do not know you personally, so your testimony cannot be verified. All I can tell from you is how you word things. It gives me an idea of where your mind and heart are.

  about a month ago · 
  

   · Report · Delete Post
• 
  

  Sacerdotus

  <<Kathie Layman Clark
  "The fact that the forefathers included God in many laws and government documents"
  
  I'd like to have a list of those documents, if you have them
  
  Your statement was " You deny Israel, a country that has its foundation in the Bible. How can a real nation exist if the story surrounding it is a fable?"
  
  and my answer was "Santa Claus was based on Saint Nicholas from Myra ( part of modern-day Turkey). are you saying Santa isn't a fable?Was St. Nicholas a TRUE story or a fable? because Turkey IS a real country.Where do fables and myths come from and why do we STILL know of them?
  See that's how Fables work, from mouth to ear, from writings passed from generation to generation. We have many myths and fables that were probably based on something real. Ever notice how almost every society had dragons? We still have all the Pagan god stories
  If the bible is the "word of God, or inspired by God,( whatever the latest notion is) what happened to the ORIGINAL writings? They no longer exist..hmmm?
  Why were so many writings LEFT OUT? Didache, is even older than some of the books that made the New Testament.
  The Letter of Clement I is the oldest Christian manuscript that is NOT in the canon.
  The Gospel of Thomas?The Dead Sea Scrolls?Nag Hammadi Manuscripts?Christian Apocrypha?Protoevangelium of James ?Gospel of Nicodemus?
  Gospel of Bartholomew? Gospels of Judas? Mary Magdalene? Why Did they leave these out? Why were others burned and destroyed? What was the Church hiding? Still Hiding?
  
  Why are there SO many versions of this "Sacred Book"? What happened to the tablets (10 commandments, or 613 depending your religion) that Moses got from GOD, written in God's hand, or Moses wrote them( I'm not sure what the latest Christian notion is on that, either)? They were done TWICE? Where are they? These "sacred tablets"?
  
  And Why do we have SO many religions? What makes YOURS the right one?
  
  I'm asking you, not to be a smart aleck but your page hear implys YOU have the answers. So Answer>>
  
  
  
  Sacerdotus comments:
  
  
  Well I am sure you have read the Constitution, Declaration of independence, and have been to a court where they use a Bible to take oath. I am also sure you use US currency which says God. :) You cannot claim that the nation of Israel took hold because of a fable. That notion is silly. Why haven't other nations developed this way? What about Iraq which has many Bibilical artifacts still around? The original documents are there. Who said otherwise? Of course copies are out there so that the originals would not be at risk of being destroyed. The reason why many manuscripts were left out was because they were agnostic in original and/or were written years after the canon was established. The Church isn't hiding a thing. You can go to Barnes and Nobles and purchase these old texts if you wish. There are many versions of the "sacred book" because of translation. Words change throughout time. If we travel to England in the 10th century we would have a problem understanding the English there and they would have trouble understanding us. A word In Hebrew, Greek, Aramaic, Latin can produce 3 or more in other languages. The best translation is the one that uses the word closest to the original. The tablets disappeared along with the Ark of the Covenant. Archaeologists are still trying to figure out where it went to. Some say it is in a monastery in Ethiopia, but we are not so sure. We have so many religions because we understand God differently. Some understand Him as multiple manifestations of a Creator, some as everything in the universe, others as a single entity. Catholicism claims it is the "true Church" because it was founded by Jesus Christ who is God and Son of God. However, one does not need to be a Catholic to go to heaven. The Catechism states:
  
  "Outside the Church there is no salvation"
  
  846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers?335 Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:
  
  Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.336
  
  847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:
  
  Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.337
  
  848 "Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men."338
  
  851 Missionary motivation. It is from God's love for all men that the Church in every age receives both the obligation and the vigor of her missionary dynamism, "for the love of Christ urges us on."343 Indeed, God "desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth";344 that is, God wills the salvation of everyone through the knowledge of the truth. Salvation is found in the truth. Those who obey the prompting of the Spirit of truth are already on the way of salvation. But the Church, to whom this truth has been entrusted, must go out to meet their desire, so as to bring them the truth. Because she believes in God's universal plan of salvation, the Church must be missionary.
  
  

  about a month ago · 
  

   · Report · Delete Post
• 
  

  Sacerdotus

  <<On Your Eve Article, I thought you said you were a student of Science?
  They're CALLING it Mitochondrial "Eve" and this is YOUR proof there was an Adam & Eve?
  
  The decending DNA Y-chromosomal Adam, the most recent male-line common ancestor of all living men ,Yes they call it Adam, How Clever, was dated some 50,000 to 80,000 years later than THIS "Eve"
  
  Assuming that Moses was responsible for the Book of Genesis , there still remains the question as to the method by which he received and transmitted it and Why God took So long to let man know of his existance. Rabbinical Judaism calculated a lifespan of Moses as 1391–1271 BCE>>
  
  Sacerdotus replies:
  
  I am, that is why I love reading about new discoveries that show connections to the Divine more explicitly. The Mitochondrial Eve is just a study, we do not know much yet. In order to verify this better, we would need genetic samples from every living human being on earth. Remember the book of Genesis was not mean to explain creation as it really happened, it is meant to explain it in an allegorical sense. The basics are there: there is a Creator, He created everything, He made humanity, humanity turned on him, He promised to save humanity through a woman and her offspring (Jesus/Mary). That is the main purpose of Genesis. People can debate the age of the earth all they want, but it does not matter. Moses was able to write these things because he was raced as a prince of Egypt. I would suppose that a prince of Egypt would have had the best education Egypt could offer. Therefore, he would have been an excellent choice to be able to pen everything. God did not take long. Humanity since the beginning has always looked to the skies. Contrary to belief, we are not born "atheist." Something in us always pushes us to ask why are we here and where did we come from. It is in our "DNA" to seek the truth.

  about a month ago · 
  

   · Report · Delete Post
• 
  

  Sacerdotus

  <<Kathie Layman Clark
  Sorry these comments are sporadic, I Am trying to read all of your links before answering.
  
  For your link about the reality of Islam. That's hysterical. That sounds just like the RightWing Nuts here. OH NO Sharia Law!!! The Islamic religion is Violent.The Koran is mostly a violent book!
  SO IS THE CHRISTIAN BIBLE!! OH NO!!!
  
  Actually I think the Islamic religion is just the opposite.Are their radicals & terrorist that use the Quran & Religion in the wrong way? YES most definately But there are Christians that do the same thing.
  The Genocide in Rwanda comes to mind. Thousands were killed. More than 911 and those were Catholics.
  The Lord's Resistance Army, a cult guerrilla army engaged in an armed rebellion against the Ugandan government, has been accused of using child soldiers and committing numerous crimes against humanity; including massacres, abductions, mutilation, torture, rape, porters, and sex slaves.
  
  Timothy McVeigh was not a Muslim.The Covenant, The Sword, and the Arm of the Lord, Defensive Action, The Freemen Community, and what Al-Khattar called "the Christian militia that supported Timothy McVeigh All terrorist groups according to FBI & CIA
  
  National Liberation Front of Tripura-Christians,Manmasi National Christian Army both terrorist groups
  A group called Concerned Christians were deported from Israel on suspicion of planning to attack holy sites in Jerusalem at the end of 1999, believing that their deaths would "lead them to heaven"
  
  Anders Behring Breivik the mass murderer in Norway, you might not call him a Christian but he wasn't a Muslim either.
  
  KKK-Christians
  
  Christian Identity is global group of churches and individuals devoted to a racialized theology that asserts that North European whites are the direct descendants of the lost tribes of Israel, God's chosen people. It has been associated with groups such as the Aryan Nations, Aryan Republican Army, Army of God, Phineas Priesthood, and The Covenant, The Sword, and the Arm of the Lord. It has been cited as an influence in a number of terrorist attacks around the world, including the 2002 Soweto bombings.
  
  Hutaree a Christian militia group based in Adrian, Michigan. In 2010, after an FBI agent infiltrated the group, nine of its members were indicted by a federal grand jury in Detroit on charges of seditious conspiracy to use of improvised explosive devices, teaching the use of explosive materials, and possessing a firearm during a crime of violence
  
  And let us not forget Prolife's Army of God attacks against abortion clinics and doctors across the United States & Christian Scott Roeder murdering Dr. George Tiller>>
  
  
  Sacerdotus Replies:
  
  
  Well when I say i answer, I mean exactly that :) If you send me a million points, I will reply back with a million points. If you wish for my answers to be brief, then keep your posts brief.
  
  You misread my post. I did not say Islam is bad. I said Islam is growing, taking over Europe and if radical Islamist terrorits take over these groups of Muslims, we all will be in trouble. Think of it this way: Germans are not bad, but if the Nazis were allowed to take over everything, then the USA would be in trouble. Now, nazism does not represent Germans. Similarly, radical terrorists do not represent Islam. The Bible and Koran are "violent" books because they reflect the struggle of humanity and God and how it relates to salvation. Sin is not pretty. So of course the Bible will highlight violence and other issues that stem from a sinful fallen nature. I am well aware of the genocides in Africa. The Church has lost many priests, nuns and bishops due to the conflicts; however, the fight is still on and we will not let evil win. The scenarios you post are isolated incidents. Christian terrorists will never be able to hijack a large denomination. Not even Fred Phelps is able to collect enough members and convince them to do as the terrorists on 911 did. All they do is annoy people.
  
  
  KKK and the other groups, I cannot speak for because I am not of them. I can only speak of the Catholic Church. If it is not the Catholic Church headed by Pope Benedict XVI, then I cannot comment on it fully. But as a Catholic I reject all forms of violence towards anyone. Jesus said to love one another as ourselves, how does blowing up people, shooting doctors represent that command? It doesn't.

  about a month ago · 
  

   · Report · Delete Post
• 
  

  Sacerdotus

  <<Kathie Layman Clark
  God is not mentioned in the Constitution, only "nature of god and the word creator mentioned in declaration. We don't use bible in swearing in at courts any more, haven't since the 60s and there has never been a law to say it was required. When Presidents and other federal officials take their oaths of office, they often place their hand on a Bible and conclude their oaths with the words "so help me God." But the Constitution doesn't require Presidents or other federal officials to do this.It's tradition, but also so the christians don't freak out. But I think we should stop the practice.
  
  I'm not sure what the country of Irael has to do with anything.
  
  Everything you wrote about the writings that were left out is BS.
  
  Jesus WAS A JEW. PERIOD
  
  and the rest just shows me you know how to cut and paste, proves absolutely Nothing
  
  So far, you're failing in your "missionary" conversion
  2 minutes ago · · Report · Delete Post>>
  
  
  Sacerdotus replies:
  
  I do believe most State Constitutions do mention God. The last time I was on jury duty, a Bible was used. Behind the judge read "In God we Trust." I need to find the picture I took of it. :)
  
  I mention Israel to highlight why the Bible cannot be a fable. An actual nation that believes to be of God actually exists. Everything I wrote is what scholars teach in any seminary.
  
  I don't convert people, that is God's job. No one converted me, it was physics. :)

  about a month ago · 
  

   · Report · Delete Post
• 
  

  Kathie Layman Clark

  You did say Islam was bad, Your link said exactly that.
  I don't really think You DO know what happened in Rwanda. It was CATHOLICS that were commiting the genocide. You lost priests and nuns alright. They went to prison for loring women,children and babies into a church as a sanctuary and locking them in and BURNING THEM ALIVE

  about a month ago · 
  

   · Report · Delete Post
• 
  

  Sacerdotus

  <<Kathie Layman Clark
  That has nothing to do with our forefathers. Like I said, tradition, some traditions never die, unfortunately
  
  I still don't get the connection of Israel. I said the bible was part history. I never said the people who wrote it didn't know about Israel. I'm sure it existed while they were writing. Doesn't prove a thing.
  
  Physics?>>
  
  
  Sacerdotus replies:
  
  Nevertheless, they are there. But mentioning God is not establishing a religion. People can believe in God and not belong to a particular faith group. Well the fact that Israel is around show the Bible is not fable. The Bible is not a newspaper. We cannot read it like the NY Times. We have to read it in context. The canon is set up the way it is to highlight the history of Salvation. It begins with the promise of the woman and child who will crush the serpents head and ends with the woman expecting a child and the dragon waiting to devour it. Scholars suggest to read the New Testament first and then the Old. It will make more sense and one will see the connections better.
  
  Yes, physics lead me the the conclusion that there is a God or logos.

  about a month ago · 
  

   · Report · Delete Post
• 
  

  Sacerdotus

  <<Kathie Layman Clark
  "But mentioning God is not establishing a religion." YES, please tell your fellow porolifers THAT. This country WAS NOT BASED ON CHRISTIANITY. Our forefathers were a mix of Theist, Antheist and Christians. That's why Christianity or Jesus is NEVER mentioned in ANY of our laws.>>
  
  
  
  
  Sacerdotus comments:
  Well we cannot deny America has Judeo-Christian principles within its system and laws. There are laws against sodomy in some states. As well as other "religious" tainted laws.
  
  
  
  
  
  <<We have Many, Many fables that include a country or a town, or a city that is real. Still doesn't prove anything.
  "Reading the new Tesement first" ? In other words, the Old Testement was written first, with all it's premonitions ( premonitions, I'm sure Jesus and his followers already knew because they were JEWS and it was part of their JEWISH religion??) and then I'm suppose to say " Oh, Yeah they came true, see it says so in this book" that was wriiten AFTER the fact. I'm suppose to believe that all the similar PAGAN "Myths"of gods born of a virgin, died and rose again, healed the sick, etc etc etc are NOT real because???? The Devil made up THOSE stories???
  I've read the bible, I've studied the bible among other religions. Like ANY book the meanings can be decifered differently among the readers. ( Reason why we have so many different religions?) I'm not telling you, you are wrong. I'm telling you I don't see it the same as You. I'm not telling you, you can't believe something. I don't care what other's believe or not believe. I'm saying You can't take your beliefs and use them to make rules for other people . Your relationship with God, or whatever you believe should be a PERSONAL relationship. >>
  
  
  Sacerdotus comments:
  Well it proves it to a certain extent. Judaism and Christianity do not have the success they do out of coincidence. There was obviously a foundation in the past that helped develop what we have now. Remember the Bible is the Catholic Canon. So it was set up to highlight the redemptive act of Christ as promised by God to Adam and Eve. So by reading the NT first, one will see the connections clearer as they then read the OT. The connections are there: Adam- Jesus is the new adam, Eve- Mary is the new Eve, The blood of the lamb used in Egypt- Jesus the lamb slained to save all. The sacrifice of Isaac by Abraham- Jesus' sacrifice being the only son of God. Christianity is unique in that we are called to spread the Gospel to the four winds. That being said, we must shape society to fit the idea of the kingdom of God. We cannot make God into a personal thing. God must be proclaimed everywhere, to everyone and any time. Church is not just on Sunday. We must take Church to our homes, work and streets.
  
  
  
  <<You said the missing writings from the bible were mostly written afterwards and why they were not included.
  Well that's not true, but even if they were...aren't You the scientist?..Do we not add to our knowledge as new things are revealed? Do We close our minds, because a New Knowledge changes an old one?>>
  
  
  Sacerdotus comments:
  
  Yes, they were written by agnostics. New knowledge is not meant to replace the old, but to expand on it.