Western Civilization is a Dead Man Walking, but It’s Valentine’s Day and We Still Have Each Other

3b63a07e9f70e01bc7988f16e82aa756NjA3LnBuZw== png 500x500

A federal judge in Kentucky killed marriage this week.

A parliamentary vote in Belgium officially raised the Ashteroths and reinstituted the Baals in the name of medical Molochs.

It was the week that Western civilization, already weakened by the blood loss from the decades-long practice of cultural self-cutting, was given its death sentence. What we were and what we would like to think we still are is now a dead man walking, waiting for the final woof! of implosion that pushes us back down to the muck from which we came.

My first thought was to drape this blog in black crepe and declare a day of mourning. We civilized folk of the Western world now kill everyone, everywhere, with a pasted on silly-smile of patently bogus “consent.” The real consent is the one we have given ourselves; the consent to kill people from conception to the tremors and dependance of old age. No one is safe from the scythe.

And yet, the yammering for more continues unabated. Last night, when I googled euthanasia, I came across a forever-to-be-nameless blog that was chortling over the rise in public acceptance of medical murder, which polite folk like to call euthanasia. This blogger, who earns his literary bread by selling atheism, went on to say that this public approval of killing grandma pits Christians even more solidly against the culture of what’s happening now. This is, the writer said, an “opportunity” for him and his to gain converts.

The question arises: Converts to what?

Certainly not a disbelief in God, since that question never arises in this or most similar analyses. This wasn’t an argument against the existence of God. It was a smug rejoicing in the increasingly widespread public rebellion against God.

Rebellion and disbelief are two entirely different things.

But what of those of us who will not rebel against our Maker? We are free, unlike these self-appointed little g gods who have taken the power of life and death onto themselves, to not have to decide.

The burden of when to kill our elderly, murder our children, flush our unborn is removed from us. We know and accept that this is murder, plain and simple, and we will not do it.

By the same token, we do not eschew the pleasures of home and family. We still have our marriages between one man and one woman in lifelong fealty. We’re not burdened with the living death of empty sexual hooking up, polyamory, swinging and endless rounds of coupling and uncoupling. We have said “no” to the insect sexuality of modern day culture and the hollowed-out death of self that it ultimately brings.

We are human, and we know that means we are made in the image and likeness of the Eternal God.

We are free from these animalistic ways of living. Or we try to be. And when we fail, we go to Him to be washed clean so we can begin again.

What of us on this Valentine’s Day that falls on the Friday of the week that Western Civilization finally convicted itself and placed its life on death row?

We chose — of our own convictions — to withhold our support for this mass suicide of a whole world. We chose — through the enabling power of the merciful grace of a God Who loves us so much that He died for us — to go another way.

My husband of 30 years and I talked about the killing field that is Belgium over dinner last night. “Next, they will kill the disabled, the mentally ill, the mentally challenged,” he said. “That has already begun,” I told him, speaking of the two men who were euthanized because they were going blind, the many who have died because they were depressed, the untold numbers of the unborn who have been slaughtered for being disabled.

Who’s next for this “right” to be killed?

Marriage died in America the day before Belguim enlarged the killing fields of medical murder to include all of humanity. The symmetry is unmistakable. We destroy the home, the family, and the lives of our young and old, all in one week.

And yet, there are those of us who do not bend our knee to the Baals. If we are to be the remnant, a 21st century version of the 7,000 that God revealed to Elijah; if we are those whose knees have not bowed down to Baal and whose mouths have not kissed him, then that is our honor and our privilege.

A husband of 30 years that I can share these thoughts with is a considerable reward for living the life Christ asks of me. Sons who are fine young men with values and kind hearts is another great reward.

But nothing, not even these wonderful things, can compare with the pearl of great price that is knowing and loving and walking with Jesus Christ.

He has saved me from the pit in which that other blogger I spoke of earlier, lies wallowing. He has lifted the deadly choice of killing grandma off my shoulders and left me free to love and, yes, to sacrifice for, my elderly parent.

He has given me the gift of love in my life and His own love, pouring down on me every day. He has spared me from the bloodguilt of killing my family members.

All of this in exchange for simply accepting that He — and not me — is God.

It’s Valentine’s Day. And on this day, those of us who follow Him have the many gifts of living good in this life, with eternal life ahead of us. In addition, He has also given us one another.

If we are today’s 7,000 who will not bend our knee to the Baals, then let’s rejoice and be glad for our salvation. Let us resolve to be the light that shines in this new darkness.

We, out of all this black morass of killing and license, are the ones who have chosen, by our free acceptance of the gift of God and His grace, to be blessed.

  • Dave

    Amen. Let us be new St. Benedict’s and preserve the “seeds” of Western Civilization and Christianity in families and communities until such time as the soil is healthy enough for them to take root again.

    • SisterCynthia

      I love St. Benedict! :) And thank you for that thought, Dave–I have been trying to comprehend how to respond to the ongoing decay, and I think this is part of the answer. I am all for voting, lobbying, etc., and will continue to participate in the process until that responsibility as a citizen falls from me, but at the end of the day it IS those next to us, family by blood or the Spirit, who He has entrusted to us to nurture and love and protect, who we may really care for. It is not “sexy,” or “important”-looking to the World, but this is the type of “leaven” Jesus spoke of, the small things of God, working thru the mass of dough and raising the whole lump, tho no one can see how. This gives me hope, and reminds me our only hope is HIM, and He has not fallen off His throne or decided to take a nap or turn His attention to some other part of the galaxy or the world. ;)

  • http://outsidetheautisticasylum.blogspot.com/ Theodore Seeber

    Knights of Columbus is my refuge, for now. Hope to one day make it more of one.

  • Bill S

    Rebecca,

    I found your site in 2010 when I did a Google search for Question 2. Since then I have enjoyed it very much. But if you want my honest opinion, I think you are losing your grip on reality and becoming a religious fanatic. You might want to consider going cold turkey off religion for a while and find another interest. I know you think that I am racked with mortal sin and have no more conscience. But you should drop that nonsense and get back to reality. No one is worshipping Baal. No one is Satanic. It’s all nonsense and you’re into it up to your ears. I’m not saying that to ridicule. I think you have surrounded yourself with people who think like you and I am genuinely concerned about you. And don’t think I am tempting you. That would be silly. You said if I don’t repent and change I will go to hell, PLAIN AND SIMPLE. You are the one heading for some kind of breakdown, PLAIN AND SIMPLE.

    • hamiltonr

      Bill you know what I said is true. That’s why you’re so upset. It’s ok. I’m not angry with you.

      • FW Ken

        Can I be a religious fanatic too, Rebecca? Please?

      • Bill S

        I feel sorry for you thinking that I am going to hell. That’s sad and pathetic.

        • hamiltonr

          Bill, I know — as you do as well — that anyone who knowingly rejects God and who has deliberately killed innocent people and who maintains that this killing is a positive good and who then does his best to convince other people to reject God and take up the killing of innocents is going to hell.

          It’s not a question. If you do not repent and change, you will go to hell.

          I do not say that in anger or as part of an argument about issues. I say it from a sense of responsibility to you as a person for whom I have a real concern.

          I don’t want you to go to hell. That is why I am trying to warn you.

          • Bill S

            You are stating religious beliefs. Religious beliefs are just that, beliefs. I don’t share those beliefs anymore. The threat of hell is a scare tactic to make people believe and behave a certain way. I will never be frightened into believing anything any religion teaches. It is the evil of religion.

            • hamiltonr

              That’s another tired old chestnut.

              • Bill S

                Tired old chestnuts are age old arguments that can’t be refuted so they are dismissed based on their being old.

                • hamiltonr

                  In this instance, they are repetitive arguments that have been answered repeatedly, to the point of utter boredom.

            • FW Ken

              Bill, you are no more an atheist than I am. You’re a Catholic with a bad conscience. Me, I’ve been there and done that. I did the atheist thing while still an Episcopalian, but it’s the same shtick.

              As a Catholic, I’ve gotten fed up and withdrawn from the Sacraments until I couldn’t stand it any more, then went home. What I have to do is deal with my own stuff and let others deal with theirs. Any recovering alcoholic will tell you that. It’s not about the Church or genetic religion: it’s about the Risen Lord Jesus.

            • Barbara

              Bill, you seem so certain that we are a group of booby-hatch cases and you are the only one who is sane. If we’re wrong, we’ll end up as nothing but worm food with not the consciousness to be aware of it. But what if you’re wrong? What if you find yourself face to face with the One whose existence you so vehemently deny…what then?

              • Bill S

                If I come face to face with anyone after I die, I will be greatly surprised and somewhat fearful that I could be in trouble having not believed in anything supernatural.

                • Barbara

                  The fact is, one of us is right and the odds are 50/50 in either direction. The evidence has been presented and pawed over ad nauseam. At this point, belief is a choice. If you’re waiting to be convinced beyond a shadow of a doubt it won’t happen. God won’t drag you kicking and screaming. You have to make the choice freely. I will or I won’t. You seem to be saying “I won’t”. It’s not a passive, throwing up of the hands saying “I don’t have sufficient data”, it’s an active refusal, that is what you will be confronted with after your life ends. if there is no
                  God it doesn’t matter. If there is, it matters enormously.

                  • Bill S

                    I won’t be frightened and intimidated into believing in God. If God would punish me for that, I have no respect for him.

                    • Barbara

                      Its not punishment. You have a choice. If you choose not, then God accepts that. But if He exists and is eternal, and the soul is eternal, then you will have to live your rejection of Him eternally, which is what hell is. Imagine having to spend an eternity with the one person whom you absolutely can’t stand and have utterly turned aside. Think of the worst ex you have ever had, someone whom you resent and dislike, whose breakup left a bad taste in your mouth, now imagine that you are inescapably stuck to that person forever. God is omnipresent and eternal, so he can’t go away from you, you will be in his face forever, feeling the seething resentment and disdain you feel now, except magnified to the point where it becomes like being immersed in flames. That is what Christians mean by hell.

                    • Bill S

                      What a comment, Barbara, that was awesome. Now you have given me something to truly think about. My wife is a devout Catholic and she is one of the most righteous and faithful people I have ever met. She knows that I don’t believe, but she holds out hope for me, and she still asks me to pray with her and go to mass. Sometimes, in mass, I feel like I am in hell. I don’t believe anything that is being said. So your description of hell makes more sense than the Gehenna (which was an open burning dump) type of hell described by Jesus. I think he was being metaphorical and you are being real. I am thinking that my hell will be over when I die but you are thinking that it will just be beginning. Great.

                    • Barbara

                      I don’t know if you have ever read it, but I would check out the book “The Great Divorce” by CS Lewis. He presents a plausible interpretation of Hell as the eternal condition of being trapped within the self and it’s neuroses. I look at it this way, if being really is eternal, if Macbeth was wrong about us strutting and fretting our hour on the stage, then every element of our human existence is eternal, including everything we have done, thought and said. Every act of ours has reverberations generations after we have passed, and when our temporal life is over we are faced with our own doings and sicknesses. if we don’t renounce those doings and diseases, God can’t remove them from us and we are stuck with them eternally. In that sense, basing belief on fear of death or hope for heaven is silly. It would be far more comforting to be an atheist. I believe in God because I had an experience of his presence that was so powerful, that I would rather believe however slim the possibility of it, than not believe. Finding out definitively that he wasn’t real would destroy me,

                    • Bill S

                      He presents a plausible interpretation of Hell as the eternal condition of being trapped within the self and it’s neuroses.

                      Wow. I would dismiss the “eternal” part but the rest makes perfect sense. I see death as a release from hell if one is living a tormented life. If there is a God and an eternal afterlife, I can only see it as unfathomable mercy. But if not, then it only brings annihilation, which can be a good thing for someone suffering through life in the hell that C.S. Lewis describes. If believing in eternal life gives this life meaning and purpose, don’t let me dissuade you. I’ve got nothing.

    • SisterCynthia

      Bill, I don’t know if you already know this or not, but just in case… talking about devotion to Baal, Ashteroth and Molech is kind of “Church-ese”/Christian-shorthand for talking about societies turning from their traditional embrace of the Christian faith to apostasy/depravity (and yes, sinking into following practices only demons love), echoing the actions of the ancient Israelites who would repeatedly drift from the Mosaic Covenant, and devotion to The LORD, to offer their devotion to the local Canaanite deities. There were many, but Baal was the chief being they would turn to worshipping. Ashteroth was Baal’s “wife,” so the emphasis at her shrines was on sex/fertilitiy rites. Molech was considered perhaps the most offensive god of them all, as child sacrifice most greatly earned his favor. I would be rather surprised if Rebecca actually believes folks are literally trying to worship those Canaanite deities when they disbelieve that the Lord of the Bible is God, engage in various kinds of biblically condemned sexual activities, or abort/euthanize their progeny. Is the net result of our culture’s secular pursuit of these behaviors a modern form of such worship? Some of us feel the echo is there, even if the intentions of the actors is definitely NOT the same. I don’t know if this ramble will make sense, but hopefully it can help. :-/

      • FW Ken

        It’s always worth remembering that the prohibition on same-sex activity is embedded in a section of Leviticus prohibiting incest and child sacrifice.

        • Bill S

          I want to see you comply with all that is written in Leviticus. I don’t live my life according to ancient rules for an ancient people.

          • hamiltonr

            How do you spell red herring?

            That’s a tired old chestnut Bill.

          • FW Ken

            So which of the commandments shall we ditch? Child sacrifice. Well that’s already gone, what with post-abortions. Incest? Personally, I find the notion of sex with my sister unappealing, but morally, why not? How about those bothersome commands to treat the stranger and traveler with hospitality? That’s clearly obsolete. Shall I keep going? I.can, you know.

            • Bill S

              There are saner and surer ways to live than to use Leviticus as your guide. There is plenty in it that you don’t follow.

              • hamiltonr

                Bill, due to your own religious training, you know this is an entirely inaccurate interpretation of Christianity and a bogus argument. Someone who was ignorant of the faith might fall for this twaddle. But you know better.

                • Bill S

                  I think Catholics should use the Catechism as their guide. Not Leviticus.

              • FW Ken

                I suppose you think you are responding to my point, but you aren’t. Plenty of the Levitical laws inform our moral sense today, but you want to cherry pick the ones you don’t like to discard. Are you suggesting that burning young children alive is ok? Well, yeah, you might.

                • HematitePersuasion

                  Plenty of the Levitical laws inform our moral sense today, but you want to cherry pick the ones you don’t like to discard…

                  How is this different from your cherry-picking the laws you wish to retain?

                  The point Bill is trying to make does not appear to be about the moral force of the Book of Leviticus, but rather that it does not (as you put it) “inform our moral sense“. Rather, to Bill (I hope I am not misunderstanding him) it seems exactly the other way around. Our moral intuition informs us as to which of the requirements of Leviticus make sense to us, and which do not.

                  Instead of coming out and saying “I believe persons struggling with same-sex attraction should be stoned to death if they act on their desires”, you seem to be saying that God demands this. And yet, you pay no attention to the other, equally emphasized demands such as not mixing fibers of different types in articles of clothing.

                  If we are discussing the actual authority of Leviticus, then this seems relevant; if Leviticus has authority, then presumably all of it has authority. But if it doesn’t have authority — as your own disinterest in the more obscure requirements suggest then bringing it up is disingenuous at best, and hypocritical at worst.

                  In a discussion so critical and important as to the proper nature of human dignity, that sort of argumentation is unworthy.

                  • hamiltonr

                    Answering this question intelligently would require a lot of background in Christian theology. Anything anyone says here in a combox will be incomplete.

                    But, assuming that you are sincere and not merely taking a position or throwing out a jibe, here’s attempt to do give a brief (and incomplete) answer. Christ fulfilled the law. There are a number of instances in the New Testament where it is clearly pointed out that this fulfillment meant that certain parts of the old law were no longer necessary — dietary restrictions, as a for instance. In other situations, such as divorce, Jesus simply stated that the law no longer applied. It’s not a question of cherry picking. It is a question of our more complete understanding of God through the teaching of Christ and the fact that we are now under the New Covenant, which was instituted at the Last Supper, rather than the old. One example would be that the rite of initiation in the Old Covenant was circumcision, but in the New Covenant it is Baptism.

                    However, the Ten Commandments are an example of something that applies to both Covenants. It is the minutiae of the Mosaic law that the New Covenant freed us from. St Paul makes this very clear in his writings, particularly, but not exclusively, in Romans.

                    This is all a lot more complex than I can deal with here. Again, if you are sincere and not just taking a position to score points, I’m sure some of Public Catholic’s readers can direct you to appropriate books.

                  • hamiltonr

                    The Christian teachings on homosexuality do not come from Leviticus.

                    Also, the Christian teachings on marriage are a steady continuum straight through from Genesis to the direct admonitions of Christ and on throughout the Scripture.

                    Bill is a thoroughly catechized Catholic, which leads me to think that he knows this and is just arguing for the sake of arguing.

                    Rather than trying to argue about a book and teachings you don’t seem to know very much about in order to score points, why don’t you try making a case you believe in?

                    • FW Ken

                      You are a much nicer person than me, Rebecca, but then I’ve been reading gay rights advocacy for nearly 40 years and I’m way past nice.

                      FWIW, most exegesis I’m aware of distinguishes the moral, ceremonial and civil laws of the Torah. As Catholics, of course we have magisterial teaching to guide our thinking on these questions, and we can also read the Torah in the classic four senses of scripture: literal, allegorical, moral and anagogical. I think we did this recently, but it’s worth noting how those who prefer to argue against simple fundamentalism (the literal) ignore other ways to read scripture.

                  • FW Ken

                    My original point was that the original context of the prohibition on same-sex acts is that of prohibitions on child sacrifice and incest. Now you wish to prattle on about stoning and the authority of Leviticus, neither of which pertain to my comment.

                    Since you are concerned for human dignity, I suggest you preserve your own by responding to what comments actually say.

      • Bill S

        Religious people feed one another’s delusions and convince each other that they are real. I am trying to talk some sense into you people but it is like shoveling against the tide.

        • SisterCynthia

          The self-reinforcing aspect of hanging out with like minded folk occurs with all groups, not just in matters of religious belief/disbelief. And it is not always a negative, either, their beliefs may be true. Additionally, it can help teams and organizations build confidence and comraderie, etc., enabling them to do better. But, be that as it may, I don’t think you are headed for feeling successful if you are really hoping to change many minds here. Any more than I’d be successful if I was hanging out with atheists or Muslims or Mormons and trying to “talk sense” to them from my perspective.
          You will probably feel more like you’re accomplishing something if your goals can shift to the less ambitious ones of, 1) understanding what those you think are mistaken DO believe; 2) articulating where you think they are mistaken and why; and most difficult but necessary for your peace, 3) NOT taking personally our not being won over if/where it doesn’t happen. The resistance you are encountering is not ultimately “personal” (tho it is, in the sense that we are all people interacting with specific other people)… it is primarily the clash between our diffent belief systems, played out among us who are talking. It takes a lot of strength (or craziness ;) ) to go into your opponents’ camp and dialogue with them. I don’t have the ambition to do that, so I have to give you credit for coming here over and over. :)

          • Bill S

            I much prefer to debate believers than commiserate with nonbelievers. I actually appreciate having my beliefs (or lack thereof) challenged.

  • hamiltonr

    Note: This is a link to Adam Lee’s blog, Daylight Atheism. Adam is my colleague here at Patheos. He wrote a post that takes positions in favor of euthanasia that are similar to the ones I referred to above. He is quite anxious to discuss the merits of euthanasia and atheism with Public Catholic readers. You can find Adam at: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/daylightatheism/

    • http://ashesfromburntroses.blogspot.com/ Manny

      There’s no fun in debating this with them. Debating only feeds their fanaticism.

      • hamiltonr

        I agree. He was insistent about being linked to from Public Catholic, so I obliged. I think his primary motivation is to convert you to atheism/euthanasia.

        • http://ashesfromburntroses.blogspot.com/ Manny

          Well, that would be a waste of both our time.

          • hamiltonr

            :-)

        • oregon nurse

          As all religionists are wont to do. Problem is they refuse to admit their atheism is just as much a religion as any other (helloooo, they’re on Patheos) and should carry no more weight in law than any other and so, from the get-go, an honest debate with them is impossible.

          • Bill S

            That is incorrect. Laws should be written with no consideration to any religion. Atheism is not a religion. It is a worldview. When there is an ecumenical service and the atheist worldview is allowed to be part of the service, some people mistake that for meaning it is a religion because it is being represented with the religions. But it is a worldview not a religion.

            • hamiltonr

              Laws should be written with no consideration to any religion has the gloss of a healthy form of secularism. However, as it has been applied in public discourse, including exhaustive arguing on this blog, it means that religious people should abandon their beliefs and adopt those of atheists when making their decisions. That is not freedom. It is tyranny. One thing that seems to be consistent in the atheist arguments I’ve seen is that they always ends up resorting to tyranny.

              • Bill S

                “Laws should be written with no consideration to any religion has the gloss of a healthy form of secularism.”

                Yes. We will have secularism with no religious influences over anything.

                • FW Ken

                  Which means “Christians shut up and let Bill make the laws”.

                  • Bill S

                    I have no interest in making laws. I’m glad that there are those who do.

                    • FW Ken

                      As long as they agree with you. ;-)

                    • Bill S

                      Of course.

            • oregon nurse

              Atheism is very much a religion – it does indeed inform their world view and for them it answers or at least deals with the big questions all religions try to answer about creation, how they got here, and their purpose (or lack of) and the meaning (or lack of) of life. It may be a reverse image of religion but it is their religion nonetheless. They will tell you that it can’t be a religion because they have no common creed but pagans have no common creed either and everyone accepts that paganism is a religion.

              They deny the religious aspect because they find the concept so distasteful but opinion isn’t truth. They also want to avoid a religious label because that would mean their public/legal voice would be as limited as a Christian’s. But I am seeing more and more organization among the New Atheists and they are going to walk themselves right into a religion and I will be glad because it will limit the over-emphasis on their views in public discourse. Atheism has become the de-facto state religion of the US and needs to be put in it’s proper place alongside all other religious points of view.

      • Bill S

        Manny. Take that sentence and reverse it. You are all feeding one another’s fanaticism. We abhor fanaticism.

        • Archaeopteryx

          And yet, I’ve seen some pretty darn fanatical atheists.

          Also, I’ve seen you state multiple times, one recently, that you don’t believe in objective morality.

          In the absence of any objective point to determine morality from, there is only opinion. I hereby declare it is my opinion that yours on any moral question is worthless. And because, according to you, there is no such thing as right and wrong you have no moral ground to argue against my opinion as it is just as valid as yours outside of any objective context.

          So why exactly should we care at all about your non-objective opinion on our host’s fanaticism or lack thereof?

        • http://ashesfromburntroses.blogspot.com/ Manny

          No. I’m not a fanatic. I don’t go around trying to convert people. I don’t care about debating people. I’m not obssessed. I don’t go to atheists sites and try to interrupt and insult them.

          • Bill S

            I think you should go on atheist sites and debate them. It is not my intent to insult you or anyone else.

            • http://ashesfromburntroses.blogspot.com/ Manny

              You’ve been pretty good about not demeaning religious people. But you do understand there are the rabid atheists who do. I just have too many things on my agenda to become involved in these long drawn out conversations that are mostly repeats of the same argument over and over. But I did recently get drawn into a debate here on the Catholic Bookshelf with a couple of atheists and I think I kicked their butt. ;) Check it out, but it’s a long back and forth discussion:

              http://www.patheos.com/blogs/happycatholicbookshelf/2014/01/answering-atheism/

              • Bill S

                Manny,

                You did not kick anybody’s butt.

                • http://ashesfromburntroses.blogspot.com/ Manny

                  :)

    • oregon nurse

      No thanks.

    • Dave

      Atheism reminds me of that song, “If loving you is wrong, I don’t want to be right.” I already know that Christianity is true; I have experienced Christ for myself, not to mention His Mother. But even if it somehow wasn’t true, I don’t think I’d want to know. If there’s no God, then there’s really no meaning in life, no right and wrong, and we are a cosmic accident.

      After experiencing the beauty of the Catholic faith, going to atheism would be the musical equivalent of going from Mozart and Beethoven to rap and death metal.

      • Bill S

        And this is why there are so many religious people. It gives life meaning and purpose. A godless life doesn’t have to be devoid of meaning and purpose. You just have to make it yourself.

        • hamiltonr

          As nearly as I can tell, atheist “meaning” comes down to aggressive boorish behavior that amounts to social flatulence, support of every form of legalized killing anyone can devise and the destruction of the social constructs that transmit civilization from one generation to another. And, oh yes, I forgot, an overweening self-righteousness and pretentious preening.

          • Bill S

            “atheist “meaning” comes down to aggressive boorish behavior that amounts to social flatulence, support of every form of legalized killing anyone can devise and the destruction of the social constructs that transmit civilization from one generation to another. ”

            You experience reactionary atheism because they disagree so vehemently with what you post. There are all kinds of atheists like there are all kinds of Catholics.

            • hamiltonr

              The fact that they disagree with what I post in no way excuses their behavior. If people have to agree with them avoid this kind of harassment, then there’s something wrong with them.

          • oregon nurse

            LOVE IT!!! If one of the NewAtheist’s had tried to write that it would have been an expletive-laden rant unfit to print.

        • Dave

          I guess you missed the part about experiencing Christ. That is (or should be) the central reason why people are Christians. Giving life true meaning and purpose is just a really great side effect.

          • Bill S

            Imaginary. That’s what I think about it.

            • hamiltonr

              No you don’t. The fact that you get so upset says that you don’t quite plainly.

  • http://ashesfromburntroses.blogspot.com/ Manny

    That convert is what I call part of the atheist proselytizers. They are rabid and in the context of Christianity, evil. Turning people away from God is evil. I don’t even understand why they care whether there are more atheists. If you don’t believe in God, then don’t believe. But they are obssessed as most fanatics are. On a better note, Happy Valentine’s Day to you and your readers.

    • hamiltonr

      Well said Manny. Happy Valentine’s Day to you!

  • peggy-o

    Happy Valentines. Day Rebecca
    You’re doing a great job shining light on a darkening world. I am thankful today to have two teens who are growing in this truth and avoiding all the pitfalls aimed at our youth. I am so proud of them. My son’s in debate and we have many lively talks. My daughter is in the arts and very savvy with understanding culture and the weak arguments aimed at her generation. We live in the world but not of it.

    I think the bigotry and intolerance that visits this site comes from the emptiness that a culture of death provides. If there was truth and light there are then why come here where they think it’s evil?

    Thanks for all you do!

    • hamiltonr

      That’s the way it has to be Peggy. We must be engaged, but at the same time, we have to protect our children and equip them to stand for the Lord.

  • oregon nurse

    So after ssm, the next domino in the re-definition of marriage is the legalization of polygamy just like so many have said it would be and which the ssm crowd denied up and down. Why? Because all the arguments against it had nothing to do with the real purpose of marriage and therefore all got shot down as unconstitutional. Here it is just in time for Valentine’s Day.
    http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/lifestyle/2014/02/sister-wives-prompts-pro-polygamy-ruling-and-debate-in-utah/
    Can anyone say slippery slope? What’s next?

    • hamiltonr

      Thanks for this link.

      Western Civilization = Dead Man Walking.

    • Chuck Farley

      The only thing that changed in Utah was that cohabitation was made legal. I’m wondering if this is the only state in the union that has/had a formal law banning cohabitation. This is not polygamy. Kody Brown is still only legally married to one woman, Mary Brown. Not to mention the fact that there are a few instances of polygamy in the bible that seem to get a pass when it comes to this type of scrutiny.

      • FW Ken

        Polygamy in the bible is always a grief. Hard to say it gets a pass.

        • hamiltonr

          Actually Scripture makes it very clear, beginning in Genesis and going through to Christ’s discussions of marriage (not to mention the Wedding at Cana) that “a man shall leave his father and his mother and cleave to his wife, and they TWO shall be one flesh.”

          Polygamy was a form of apostasy that came about through corruption from the larger world. I think God allowed it to continue — as He did and does many sins — to give the Israelites (and humanity) time to grow out of it and they did grow out of it. Polygamy had ended as a practice among the Jews when they came back from the exile.

          That we are lapsing back into it after the explicit instructions from Our Lord concerning marriage may not be quite so forgivable.

          • Chuck Farley

            Are you saying that Abraham was an apostate? I’m seriously curious as to where biblical polygamy is referred to as an apostasy. I’m also curious as to what you consider to be explicit instruction from the Lord. Also, since humans today are not the same humans from Abraham’s time perhaps God would be patient with us and allow us to grow out of our sinful behavior as well.

            • hamiltonr

              Abraham committed sins that were and are clearly condemned in scripture. He lied. He married his half sister. He had sexual relations with Hagar which resulted in the birth of Ishmael. Even with all that, I am not aware that Abraham was a polygamist.

              God called Abraham out of a time when people had lost their understanding of Him. It was dominated by false gods and extreme immorality, including child sacrifice. Abraham was the first of a long history of God’s interaction with humanity.

              If you read the Bible, it’s clear that God works through human beings in a slow and progressive revelation of Who He is, and what we are to do and be. Jesus, in referring to the Kingdom as a “mustard seed” or “leaven” was describing this process.

  • EMS

    What kills me about atheists and people like Bill S. is that they assume that we’re against abortion, euthanasia, same-sex “marriage”, the hook-up culture, etc. because we’re Catholics. Wrong! I’ve been horrified by abortion, the killing of the ill,the elderly, the disabled, etc. and same-sex “marriage” (and also war and the death penalty) since I was a teenager back in the 60s. And I can honestly say that was before I really knew what the Church’s position was. I had arguments back in college on those issues without once raising the banner of religion. I am not against abortion etc. because I am a Catholic. I am a Catholic because I am against abortion, etc. If the Church ever changed it’s position (only in the demented dreams of some people!) I would cease to be a member of that so-called church.

  • kenofken

    This is your idea of a Valentine’s Day post? I was having a good one till I read this. Now I kinda want to go see a Belgian doctor!

    • hamiltonr

      My mood was pretty black after that vote in Belgium. Euthanizing little kids and people with dementia?

      Hard to get happy after that.

      FWIW, my mood has repaired itself. I trust God and simply offered myself to His service, however He chooses — or doesn’t chose — to use me. I’m now gearing up to fight.

      Sorry if it ruined your holiday, Ken. But then crimes against humanity shouldn’t give you or any other decent person a pair of happy feet.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X