"A Humble Servant's Catholic Blog"

I don't like attention grabber headlines just for the sake of grabbing attention, so I decided not to title this article after the first statement by this atheist. But the fact is, he is saying that if the Virgin Birth is true, then Jesus is " a bastard ". According to his view, if Christians believe that Jesus was born outside of Marriage, then that leaves us looking like fools who worship a fatherless child. I normally don't respond to rubbish of this sort, but it was a great opportunity to point out to this person that he was engaging in illogical debate. Since he purports to be "logical", I hoped he'd find this important, and you, the reader, may also benefit from seeing a few more examples of deceptive tactics used by people in arguments. Sardar - " During Jesus time, anyone who was born outside marriage (married couple(s)) was called a "bastard(s)". [Mary] slept with a man (she claimed it was an imaginary being). There is certa...

This is a snip from an on-going dialog with an atheist which focuses on an atheistic argument I had not encountered before: whether a theistic model for God is compatible with free will. As the argument goes, God [should He exist] is assumed NOT to have given “free will” to man according to the creation narrative in Genesis. Here’s a paraphrased summary of the position: “If God is all-knowing, all-powerful, all-present, etc…then the following are true: -He foreknew the fall and His act of redemption; -He allowed His creation to reject Him; -He "authored", (His Word via the hands of men chosen by Him to write them) what we know as the Scriptures; -The "way" it was written is in His control; -The way it's written communicates that God assumes reasoning powers we were supposedly not granted until later.” The last statement in the hinge for this person’s argument. Since theists believe in free will, and since the Scriptures are written in such a way tha...

This is a slightly paraphrased transcript of a friendly conversation that took place between Frank Turek and an atheist (see 6-minute video linked here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ynJwvv7wlFc ). This is very similar to what any Christian or atheist could expect in an actual discussion (and very closely mirrors actual discussions I have had...minus the conclusion) about morality and whether morality implies or “needs” a God. Why would a person be an atheist if they ‘might possibly know’ that God exists? - The fact that there are so many terrible things in the Bible, like when God condones/approves the torturing of slaves, even with no reason given for the ill treatment of them. Why would anyone want to follow such a God if He ‘might possibly exist’? Why would you follow such a God? Okay, let’s not even look at the context of the passage you are referring to. Let’s assume what you just said is 100% true. As an atheist, why is that wrong? - Morally, one would...

In Part I , I described the video I had shared which made a logical case against denying God’s existence simply on the basis that “evil” exists and discussed a definition of evil which excludes God and relies on our own subjective opinions. It’s worth repeating that, without an objective definition of “evil”, all you are left with is subjective opinion ( …how I perceive something…which may differ from how someone else perceives the same thing ).   Subjectively defining evil becomes a meaningless mash of opinions which destroys any definition of evil. And this is where the dialog with “MC” comes in.   I had addressed this to another friend of mine [Jay], but it was “MC” who replied.   Dave:   God’s existence can’t logically be denied just because there is evil in the world.   In fact, wouldn’t you agree that the existence of evil implies that there is a way things are “supposed to be” (a.k.a. “good”)?     And if there is a way things a...

It began with a video posted to a friend’s FB wall.   https://www.facebook.com/joshua.feuerstein.5/videos/549242585178428/?pnref=story In this short [scripted] video, a young lady demonstrates that evil and suffering in the world are not sufficient evidence to deny the existence of God (logically).   One might as well not believe in dentists because of all the tooth problems, she claims.   The dentist remarks that he can’t help those who don’t come to him for help, and thus the analogy is made that evil is simply the result of people not turning to (or turning away from) God. Obviously the analogy falls short, because analogies tend to do that.   She couldn’t really deny the existence of the dentist because she’s at his office.   (Though, that wouldn’t stop someone who has never experienced a dentist from not believing.)   But the point is a logical one.   Denying God’s existence because of the evils of the world is fallacious because 1) it pres...

I once had a discussion with a friend of mine who believed that the world would be better off without any religion.   “ I think I figured it out ” , he said.   “[The one thing humans can] do away with that would make the world a much safer, brighter, happier, more progressive and innovative, and loving world [is religion]” .     Going with my own understanding of “religion” , I asked, “ How could the world be safer, brighter, happier, more progressive/innovative/loving by doing away with a relationship with our Creator? Seems like that would be a step in the opposite direction. ”   We ended up talking about several different topics at once ( whether we really know our Creator; whether He created evil/sin; the nature of free will; the state of humanity; etc. ) but the main focus was religion, and whether the world would be better off without it.     I said, “ Let’s make sure we are talking about the same thing:   ‘Religion’:   f...