2cornucopias

Archive for the ‘08 Musings by Jack Reagan’ Category

, ,

Some Truths About False Gods

In 08 Musings by Jack Reagan on 2011/08/20 at 7:00 AM

The Creator-God, because it is His nature to be good, wishes that every human being who has ever lived or will ever live should be able to fulfill his or her purpose of life and come to eternal happiness after death by being in the presence of God Himself. Not everyone has been exposed to Divine Revelation, but everyone does have a means of determining that there is a Supreme Being who has also implanted in the human soul a sense of moral right and wrong (conscience). This human reason can deduce the existence of a Supreme Being without any reference to anything religious. The most obvious and easiest way is to simply observe the wonders of nature and the universe, realizing that no one on earth could create it all. There must be another being outside the universe that brought it all into being.

The ancient peoples, without the aid of divine Revelation and millennia of human experience to build on, sensed that there was a Supreme Being, but usually ended up worshipping false gods, distortions of reality. Without science, some groups explained natural phenomena by inventing rain gods, moon gods, fire gods, fertility gods and others (polytheism). Still other groups concluded that things did not merely exist in a religious milieu, but were part of an all-absorbing deity, of which all things were a part (pantheism). Many did not see things as part of a godhead, but rather each individual thing that existed was divine in itself (animism). A few became so perverse that they invented gods that were evil in themselves such as those that demanded human sacrifice (Aztecs of Mexico) or the Middle Eastern god, Moloch, who demanded the sacrifice of children. (Remind you of anything going on today?)

We can assume that early man was attempting to find the true God, but he usually failed because every person is burdened with the effects of Original Sin whether he knows it or not. The only ancient people that did find the true God were the Jews of the Old Testament.

Contemporary man is different. He is not looking for a Supreme Being; he has already found one … himself, and his false god is himself and his ego. All truth resides in him. No truth exists outside of him. He decides what is good or bad, moral or immoral for himself. If you disagree with him, you just have to live with it. Feelings, not human reality, are his guide. Because he fails to deal with reality (or Truth), he has set up a core of sub-gods among which he is free to chose whichever one suits his fancy. Thus modern man adores such entities as the body, and his religious rituals are gyms, exercise, diets and health fads. His goal of life is fitness to avoid as long as possible the unspoken dread: death.

Another of his sub-gods is what used to be called illicit sexual activity (or even further back, sin).  But his god has deceived him and left him with disease, death, frustration, impersonal relationships and all the ill-effects of rejecting Divine Law.

Many have come to worship sports and entertainment (one of the causes of the decline of Rome, according to Arnold Toynbee, a British historian). My TV has dozens of channels dedicated to every sport known to man and a mere 4-5 religious channels. One city in NC has wasted millions of tax dollars in artificial white-water rafting, a racing museum, new stadiums while old ones still functioned. Children are urged to compete at an early age on teams of all types.  Baseball used to be referred to a “pastime.” No sport is anything but all-consuming today.

Political parties have become false gods to many. They have become an end in themselves, rather than a means to influence elected officials. “This is MY party: right or wrong.”

Presidential politics has become on-going in the media. As soon as one presidential election ends, the media start right in on the next one. There is no respite. Sometimes a party, to curry favor with the “correct” people, will support immoral and/or stupid ideas. This does not seem to have much impact on membership roles at all. “Christians” will vote for a candidate who openly professes his non-Christian moral values. “MY party: right or wrong.”

In education and science, the great false god is Darwinian evolution, as yet, far from proved, but nevertheless is  new religion. I read that any professor who balks at evolution will not be hired by most college biology departments. Evolution is an egregious error perpetuated by those who claim to seek truth in science. Apparently, the truth must coincide with preconceived ideas; if not, too bad for truth.

The list of modern false gods could go on and on…money, power, prestige, popularity, etc. It is important to note that there is NOTHING wrong in themselves with any of these things that become false gods to many. They become false gods when their adherents exaggerate their importance and will do too much to attain them. Money is not evil, but greed is. Sex is good, but only within the context of Divine Law. Those who deny objective truth lose their ability to think logically and systematically; therefore, luring them to false gods becomes relatively easy.

The problems with any false gods are:

  • The worshipper must first invent the false god. That makes the inventor the god’s creator.  He then worships what he himself made, thereby relinquishing his role as superior to his creation. (The true God is always supreme.)
  • False gods are fickle and undependable. Sometimes they please, and sometimes they annoy or outrightly fail to deliver on promises. (The true God is always consistent and never fails to give what we need.)
  • False gods promote of all kinds of immorality, especially physical and social. (The true God never endorses any sin for any reason.)
  • False gods are by their nature very, very temporary. Illness, age and frustration can end your “religious” life. Death will certainly end it. This is the problem with all habits of sin: Those habits rule you until some circumstance alters the situation. (The true God is eternal and is present before and after death and through all the ups and downs of life.)
  • False gods are anti-human because a person who refuses to think reasonably is not acting fully as human beings. To fail to act in a human way is to fail to attain the goal of human life which none of the false gods can offer. (The true God offers an eternal destiny fully in accord with human needs.)

In the long run, false gods never satisfy because they are incapable of it. Even in the short run, they often fail to give the worshipper what he is looking for. There is always a pennant “next year”, another dollar to be made, another man/woman to be seduced, another election to be fought and so on. The reason they don’t satisfy is relatively simple: As St. Augustine said, “Our hearts were made for Thee, O,Lord, and they will not rest until they rest in Thee.”

We were not designed to be satisfied for long by false gods. If we persist in idolizing them (and they are idols), even up to the moment of death, we will be unknown strangers in the eternal world of the after-life. Our former gods will simply be setting out to lure other fools.

Are we  so blinded and deafened by the siren lure of those false gods in this life that we don’t hear the quiet knocking on the door of our hearts by the One Who is the Way, the Truth and the Life? When we’re stopped by death and face the eternal gate of heaven, what will we say to St. Peter….if we even recognize him?

, , ,

The 800-Pound Gorilla

In 08 Musings by Jack Reagan on 2011/08/06 at 7:49 PM

The Western World (North America and Europe) is awash with all types of philosophies competing for dominance and control.  Vying for attention are relativism, hedonism, environmentalism, skepticism, nihilism and least that many more.  One of these false philosophies seems to have taken the lead because it really includes many others under it’s umbrella.  Its name is Secularism, the philosophy that tries to exclude God and  religion from any meaningful  role in human life.  Historians offer different dates and causes for the rise of this false set of ideas, but I suggest that secularism began in the Garden of Eden with the conversation between Satan and Eve.  This was the first attempt to show that God was a minor figure in the human drama, that His commands were mere suggestions, that you could get away with ignoring them and that, in fact, by getting rid of God man could become like  God.  Satan was the first secularist, and this tells us the real origin of this set of beliefs.

Secularism has several features.  The first is a basic animosity toward religion in general and Christianity and the Catholic Church in particular.  It is atheistic and/or agnostic (meaning we can’t really know anything about God . . . if there is one).  Religion, therefore, has no place in public life, no place in government, no place in education or law.  If one must have religion, keep it to yourself.  Whenever religion attempts to raise a voice in the public arena, it is to be crushed if at all possible . . . call the ACLU and have some judge declare that the “offended” atheists should prevail over the majority who espouse religious sentiment.

Secondly, this false philosophy endorses total personal freedom in the matter of morals “as long as you don’t hurt anyone.”  Thus, under this umbrella we find liberal and radical feminists who support abortion, and the homosexual rights groups that are succeeding in making the deviant acceptable or at least tolerated.  Moral laws based on religion are to be rejected.  After all, if there is no God, how can there be divine moral laws? As one might expect, those who champion freedom from moral laws generally have sexual laws in mind.  There can be no agency that has any authority to regulate moral law.  (If a civil law happens to be the same as a religious law, the civil law will be accepted because it comes from “true” authority.)  The new standard for personal morality is: “If I like it, it’s moral; if I don’t like it, it’s immoral.”  Or, “You have your morals, I have mine.”  When asked what he thought of the “new morality”, the famed English convert to Catholicism, G.K. Chesterton, replied, “It is neither new nor moral; it’s just our old friend sin.”  How true!

The third feature is the absolute toleration of anyone’s immorality and unquestioned acceptance of any stupid or illogical idea that comes down the pike.  “Who are you to say I am wrong?”  The secularist world easily tolerates contradictions.  Abortion is good; abortion is bad.  No problem; the secularists accepts both.  (The fact that accepting contradictions violates a basic principle of correct thinking, does not seem to occur to such people).  Tolerance trumps logic anytime.  Needless to say, there is one group to which this sacrosanct rule of tolerance does not apply . . . Christians.  Their “crazy” ideas cannot be tolerated; only the “crazy” ideas espoused by the secularist are acceptable.

Secularism is thriving in the U.S. and Europe.  The Constitution of the European Union contains not a single reference to anything religious.  There seems to be no force capable of diminishing its ongoing thrust because the secularists control the organs of power.

The media of every type is grossly biased against religion, traditional morality and its ideas.  Christians are usually depicted as dumb, hypocritical and prejudiced.

The élite colleges, universities and law schools are  teaching secularism.  One professor, a Catholic, who was teaching a course of Catholicism, said at the appropriate point in the course that Catholicism believes that homosexual activity is immoral.  The homosexual crowd managed to get him fired (these are, by the way, same people who preach tolerance); however, the backlash was so great that the professor was reinstated.

Government at all levels has become increasingly non-religious.  The current administration endorses many activities that used to be called sins: Abortion, partial-birth abortion, embryonic stem cell research, gay rights and many more.

Our Lord said to measure results and effects to know the value and nature of a cause.  Philosophies come and go.  Yes, they do, but they also leave their mark.  Nazism was a  false philosophy that certainly left its mark and left behind millions of graves.  So also, Communism.  Secularism, when successful, leaves behind ultimately unworkable societies because it is a philosophy that runs counter to human nature. It does not fit human psychology and the aspirations built into man by the Creator.  Whether you believe in a Creator or not, remember this: Simply believing something to be a certain way does not make it so.  Objective reality does not change to fit an error in belief.

And how have we fared after several decades of the celebrated “sexual freedom”?  50,000,000 babies killed because they were inconvenient to someone, never before seen rates of sexual diseases, the psychological and philosophical contradiction of same-sex marriage, easy divorce, child abuse, a significant rise in crime rates, rejection of authority by too many people.  Have there been some positive effects of this “sexual freedom”?  Can’t think of any!

Secularism has also impacted Christians, a very broad term used in the US that includes the Christmas-Easter attendees and the truly devout.  Statistically, Christians have fallen for the secularist’s line in large numbers.  There is little difference between the beliefs of secularists and the behavior of many Christians.  “Just our old friend, sin” making a reappearance.

Eve didn’t realize that her friendly snake was actually an 800-pound gorilla in disguise.  Secularism is  Satan’s latest disguise.  Eve thought she could do business with Satan, and we know what happened.  We can enjoy all kinds of false and silly beliefs about God, but bear in mind that He does not change Himself to fit human beliefs or errors.  God is God, and it is man who must change to conform to Him.

Otherwise, that 800-pound gorilla . . .

, , , ,

Blessed Mary, Ever Virgin

In 08 Musings by Jack Reagan on 2011/07/22 at 10:11 PM

One of the more notable differences between Catholicism and Protestantism’s is their respective attitudes toward Mary, the Mother of Christ. Catholicism shows a great veneration and respect for her while Protestantism gives her little attention or a token mention on Christmas. (This attitude will vary in degrees among various denominations.) Many prospective converts to the Catholic Church find the Marian doctrines sometimes difficult to grasp, mainly because of what they have heard from or been told by fellow Protestants. Some have heard that the Church worships Mary which is not true.Others have heard that Catholics consider her divine, on a par with God, which is also not true. Probably the most common difference is the respective beliefs about the perpetual virginity of Mary.  Or, to ask it another way, did Mary have other children conceived the normal way?  This is a relatively recent idea because the founding fathers of Protestantism, Martin Luther and John Calvin, both believed that Mary lived and died a virgin.

The Christian Church from the beginning has always believed in the perpetual virginity of Mary.  It is so stated in the Apostles’ Creed. Later Protestants began to question this doctrine  and offered unconvincing arguments that Mary had had more children.  One of the arguments in favor of perpetual virginity is that the Catholic Church has always believed it, and, since the Catholic Church is under the protection and guidance of the Holy Spirit, it cannot teach doctrinal errors. If this were an error, it would have died out  in the early days. Thus, the Catholic Church has taught this doctrine for two millennia without objection, as it were, from the Holy Spirit. God would simply not allow the Church to preach a false doctrine.

The Church has always maintained that the word “brothers” referring to Christ’s relations was not limited to siblings but  included extended family. Protestants reject this idea out of hand.  They take the word brother in a very literal sense.  (Interestingly, they do not take other Gospel words literally when those words do not meet with their approval.)  Yet, at the same time, in many denominations, “Brother” and “Sister” are freely used among members with no thought that they are referring to siblings.

The reason for this insistence on Mary’s non-virginity is the Protestant doctrine of “Sola Scripture”, the Bible alone contains all the truth. (Yet, the Bible itself do not say this.)  The effect of this doctrine is to close off Protestants to the writings of the early Church Fathers, the ecumenical Church councils and writings of various Popes on the subject.  Just as we read the writings of the American Founding Fathers to shed light on their beliefs, so the Church Fathers tell us more than what is in the Bible about early Christian beliefs. The Bible is not self-explanatory; this is why there are so many thousands of Protestant denominations.

Joseph is heard of no more after the incident of finding the Child in the Temple.  If he had fathered other children prior to that, why is it not mentioned? This would preclude any accusations of immorality against Mary, his wife.

If Mary and Joseph had had other children, it would have been an odd family set-up: one sinless divine child with a sinless mother and other normal children with all their good and bad actions. It would have been an untenable situation.

If Christ did have siblings, why were none of them at Calvary? Normally, at least one would have bonded with Christ, but there was no sign of any kinsmen at Calvary (except Mary)

We can assume that at the of the Crucifixion Mary was probably a widow; otherwise, Joseph certainly would have been there. In a few hours, Mary would be alone in the world, but no son would allow that if he could do otherwise. Thus, Mary is entrusted to St. John, the beloved disciple. If Mary had had other children, it would be  normal  for one or more of them to assume her care.

Mary and Joseph were both holy people attuned to the Divine Will. She was called “full of grace”, and he was described as a “just man”, a high accolade in the Bible. This being the case, they would have deemed even licit marital relations to be unbecoming, almost anticlimactic in the light of the extraordinary supernatural events they both experienced. The body that housed and delivered God would seem very unsuitable for natural children. Based on Jewish practice at the time, it is not unreasonable to assume that,  like some married couples, they took a vow of virginity as a means of pleasing God. (Of course, in our culture that would make you verifiably loony.)

Why then does so much Protestant teaching stress the children of Mary? I offer an opinion, and it is only an opinion. For a long time, Protestantism has been watering down or discarding Christian doctrine and morals. Many now accept abortion, contraception, women clergy, active homosexual clergy, same-sex unions and marriage. This would have been unheard of 75 years ago. It seems to me that many Protestants, especially leaders, do not have a valid idea of who Christ is and what He signifies. This is why they have abandoned so much of His teaching, particularly that of the Eucharist.

Thus, the emphasis on Mary’s multiple children is another attempt to denigrate the Incarnation, and without that, Christianity is dead. If Mary is just another women who experienced a unique event, then there is not much special about her or the event. It is a short step to the idea that Jesus Christ was merely a good man, a great teacher, a philosopher but no one eternally significant.

Ideas have consequences, and false ideas lead to negative consequences. The worst consequence of this particular false idea about May’s perpetual virginity is that the Protestant world has lost out and is still losing out by rejecting the one human being that God Himself selected and crafted from the beginning for a special role in salvation and human history. The Catholic world is full of the effects of the positive role of Mary in the life of the Church and the individual Catholic.

You may rejoice in the Father and the Son, but without the Mother, your spiritual family is simply not complete.

, ,

Is That Father Phyllis? by J. Reagan

In 08 Musings by Jack Reagan on 2011/07/09 at 1:01 AM

One of the characteristics of the dissenters who arose after Vatican II has been their refusal to accept official decisions of the Church when those decisions did not suit them. (We see this also in the political world when elections and votes are not to some group’s liking; they simply rebel against it. This is an ominous turn of events in a democratic society. It is less so in the Church because of the protection of the Holy Spirit.) Some who call themselves Catholics still favor abortion and same-sex marriage. Some condemn the Latin Mass as antiquated. Others reject the Church’s ban against open Communion (the idea that anyone can receive the Eucharist in a Catholic Church.) Another persistent dissent involves the concept of women priests. Some “Catholic” women have gone so far as to get themselves “ordained” illicitly and invalidly.

The Catholic Church has never had women priests. It is the only contemporary Christian  religion that does not have female clergy. History has told us that many of the older religions had goddesses and priestesses. A prominent goddess in the Middle East was Astarte, a fertility goddess. Her priestesses’ form of worship in some places was sexual intercourse with followers. So having women clergy is not a new idea at all. The Jewish and Christian religions were unusual for their time because they had a male clergy only.

In our own time, there is probably nothing that a Catholic priest can do that a woman could not do, and some women could do it better than some priests I have known. But that is not the point. The women in the Gospels were all more worthy than the Apostles before Pentecost. Who was more worthy than Mary, the Mother of Christ? Pope John Paul II said officially that there will be no women priests and that the matter is closed.

Those who agitate for women’s ordination are still at it. The most often heard argument is that Christ did not select women because of the culture in which He lived. It was male-dominated, and He would not want to be different. And, had He lived in our culture, He most certainly would have chosen some women to be Apostles.

This argument reveals a profound ignorance of who Christ is and the nature of God. First of all, Christ was a divine Person; he was not merely a Jewish man of his time. Because He was divine, he was also God in human form. As a God-man, he had all the attributes of God. As God he was not culture-bound. As God He had divine omniscience; he knew the future because he was eternal. To be eternal means to exist outside of time, having no past, present or future. To God, human history is one big present, one big now. This means that Christ was completely aware of modern feminism and its demands. It was not a surprise to Him. Had he lived now, he would still not have chosen women.

He did not make a mistake as some contend. (If He had, then He would not be God, and we would be fools to be His followers because he would be no more dependable than any other human religious leader.)

Why a male-only clergy?

Priests were to act in the name of Christ as He Himself set it up on the first Holy Thursday. The term is “in persona Christi.”  Women simply cannot represent the human side of Christ.

The priest is the dispenser of grace through the ministry of the Sacraments. As such, he is analogous to God the Father who also dispenses divine grace.

Let’s assume there could be a valid argument that women would make better priests. The whole history of Christianity shows that God is not in the habit of using “the best” available to do his work. It is usually the humble, the unassuming, the one who considers himself or herself unworthy of any divine consideration. Ex. Mother Teresa, St. John Vianney, Sr. Faustina Kowalska, the Little Flower and on and on. Most of the damage to the Church over the years has been done by clergy who thought they were better or smarter than everyone else. Women have rarely been negatives in the Church. Nevertheless, Christ still mandated a male-clergy, and He is God, who is a bit smarter than we are. When you acquire divine intelligence, you can argue about it then.

Then Christ must have considered women to be second rate or inferior. Not at all. The women in the Gospels all come out looking better than the men. The most perfect human ever created was a woman. Women saints have done great things for the Church, and unsung women have always been necessary to the church’s mission.

Women have a role in the Church and in the world that no man can ever fulfill. By divine Will, they are the nurturers, the teachers and the heart of families; without good families, there is no good society.

Catholics have a choice. They can follow our divine Lord or they can follow the politically-correct crowd and play like the Church has been wrong for 2000 years until they came on the scene to “get it right”.

The militant feminists have an ultimately destructive agenda for women. God’s plan is really much better.

, , ,

The Art of Conscience by J. Reagan

In 08 Musings by Jack Reagan on 2011/06/25 at 12:00 AM

A Catholic man in his 20s had not attended Sunday Mass in many years. He was also not too discriminating is some of his other moral choices. His drift began after receiving Confirmation because he fell into the trap of thinking that he did not need or had no obligation toward God after Confirmation.  When asked why he did not go to Confession, he replied that his moral lifestyle did not bother him at all, and, therefore, he had no need of Confession. (It did not occur to him that his lifestyle might “bother” Someone else.)

In recent years much has been said and written about the primacy of conscience, that conscience should be obeyed, that it is our normal moral guide. Some of the talk about conscience arises with those whose moral bent is less than Biblical.

Conscience is a judgment of the intellect that tells us to do good and avoid evil. It is part of the natural moral law implanted in the minds of all human beings. This is why St. Paul could say that all humans have a chance at salvation. This conscience is a divine gift . . . unless distorted. All normal people know that some things are good (helping others) and some things are evil (lying, stealing).  In fact, when societal consciences do not follow the rules, the society will collapse. Conscience is an exclusively human property; it is not to be found in any other creature.

It is true that there is a primacy of conscience. We must follow our own conscience. But, conscience cannot be a purely subjective and personal interpretation of the moral law.

Objectively speaking, this means that the young man in the opening story is doomed to Hell because, while he did follow his conscience, it was a totally false conscience made so by the man himself. Thus, his moral judgments were false, too.

To make valid moral decisions, a conscience must be what is termed “informed”: the conscience and its choices must be based on objective truth. The divine moral law is not a menu of options.

There are several types of false consciences:

1. Scrupulous – These persons see sin where there is none, see venial sins as perhaps mortal, negatively interpret whatever they do or don’t do as a moral failure. They live a life of constant moral anguish over their supposed “evil” ways. Most are aware of the problem because the priest in confession will tell them that they are being too hard themselves, yet the scrupulous seem powerless to help themselves.

2. Lax – Is the opposite.  These people take a cavalier attitude toward morality. What is mortal sin, they declare venial; and what is venial is not worth bothering about.Theirs is a very subjective view of what is right or wrong for themselves. These are Catholics described as “cafeteria Catholics” who pick and chose what doctrines and morals appeal to them. The others are ignored or rationalized. Thus, it is that majority of “Catholics” who favor abortion, contraception, same-sex marriage, etc.  We see it also in the fact that, even with this record, Saturday Confessions are at a minimum while those who receive Holy Communion on Sunday amount to 99% of the congregation.

3. Dead – These people are totally amoral. The moral rightness or wrongness of an action does not enter into their evaluation of it. There is only a subjective sense of right and wrong.”I decide what is right or wrong for me; no one else does”. They become their own moral standard. The idea of sin is foreign to them. While we cannot judge the moral condition of anyone, we can certainly say that, objectively, Hitler, Stalin and Mao probably had no consciences at all. There are those people not as well-known as these who proportionately are just as bad.

4. True –  Is based  on subjective  truth, that is, reality. We are obliged to base our conscience on what is objective truth and reality. We cannot base it on what we want to think is true, what we decide is true or what appeals to us. Otherwise, conscience becomes a tool to serve one’s whims, desires and propensities.

There are three sources of a true conscience:

1. The natural moral law that applies to all humans. It demands that we do good and avoid evil. It is best exemplified in the Ten Commandments which are the written form of the natural moral law.

2. The Holy Scripture correctly understood, and not subjectively interpreted.

3.  The Magisterium of the Church. This is the teaching authority of the Church whose authority to teach was given to the Church by Christ Himself. This authority enables the Church to lead people to salvation because the Church is the earthly source of divine Truth and objective  truth. If the Church officially declares something to be morally right or morally wrong, it is seconded by God Himself as He promised the Church“Whatsoever you bind on earth shall be bound in Heaven, and whatsoever you loose on earth will be loosed Heaven”.  MT. 16:19.  One with a true conscience has no problem with this idea.

As we pass through life, we have many significant experiences: extended family, school, graduation, career, marriage, children and sometimes retirement. But, the most important moment of anyone’s life is the last moment. If one is ready to meet God, your life has been a success regardless of what else happened in your life. If you are not ready, your life has been a failure regardless of what else happened in your life. The goal of human life is to be united with God for eternity. This is His idea. Simple as that, whether you believe it or not.

Cultures change, moral attitudes change, philosophies come and go, movers and shakers are here today and gone tomorrow, but God and his law remains unchanged. Whether you believe it or not, accept it or not, act accordingly or not, reject it or not, it doesn’t matter. The eternal by definition never changes. A true conscience is a valued guide to the final moment. If you have a true conscience, follow it. If you do not, you’d better get one before it is too late. God shows mercy to the repentant, but not to the morally arrogant.

, , ,

Reconsider: Is God God or Are You God? by J. Reagan

In 08 Musings by Jack Reagan on 2011/06/19 at 7:00 AM

One of the characteristics that distinguishes  humans from animals and all other creatures is that humans can and do wonder about things, about the purpose or the reason something is what it is or does what it does. Animals never wonder about the circumstances of their lives. They live by instinct which never changes; they would have no reason to wonder because they can’t change anything anyway.  Adam and Eve’s dog would be right at home with your dog, but they would be awestruck by human life today. That’s because we humans can ponder purpose and make changes if we so desire.

It is very important to know the purpose of whatever we are dealing with because, if we do not know the true purpose of something or someone, we may end up not using it, misusing it, damaging or even destroying the thing. Small children do this routinely. This also applies to people; think of the misuse and destruction of people by Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot in the modern era alone. They saw other people only as means to an end.

Throughout life  we deal with many intermediate purposes and goals such as education, marriage, family career etc. These differ from person to person and culture to culture. Some are successful in reaching their goals while others, not understanding the nature of goals, flounder through life. Half the marriages in the U.S. fail because at least  one spouse does not understand the nature and purpose of marriage.  Schools today are failing in a tragic way because they changed their purpose from the acquisition of knowledge to politically correct socialization.

I don’t think many would dispute that the country has many seemingly insoluble problems; drugs, crime, abuse at all levels, illegal immigration etc. I suggest that the reason is that  in the U.S. (and most of the Western world)  the most important purpose of all has been forgotten or ignored, i.e. the purpose of man himself . The purpose of anything is usually determined by the maker. Man was made by God in the beginning, and it is  God who assigned man his purpose which will never change regardless of how man deals with it. God does not adjust Himself to contemporary cultural whims. Anyone who does not know or does not care that he or she is made in the image and likeness of God is doomed to the ultimate failure which is not to be a saint.

Man has a divine goal or purpose which is his final union with God for eternity. This is what God has set up, and He has also set up definite ways to reach that goal which are not subject to human interpretations. On the other hand, man can reject his purpose and set up his own idea of purpose, but if we set up any purpose that does not  conform to divine purpose,  he will live a substandard human life.

Many are going through life today with no ultimate goal in mind. They are like a person who drives without a destination. When the gas runs out, he is nowhere and there’s no gas. Going through life without an eye on eternity  may cause one to lose the very purpose of life itself. No matter  what circumstances we find ourselves in, for good or bad, we all will arrive  at that six-foot hole. That’s the end of striving. You made it or you didn’t.  Hell is realizing that you “blew it…. badly”.

The real purpose of human life is to know, love, and serve God while on earth and spend eternity in His presence. Anything less is risky. One of the great saints of the Church used to have as his norm, “Quid ad aeternitatem?”.. How does this affect eternity? We live in a world which, at least in practice, does not believe in eternity at all. How many people have you seen die on TV with no thought whatsoever of an afterlife? Death is the end. Be that as it may,  it does not affect God’s purpose for people. We will knock on the door of eternity someday. If you have pursued your God-given goal, the door will not be opened by  a fellow in a red suit carrying a pitchfork.

The most important question is: “Is God God or are you  God?” If you decide that YOU are God by your lifestyle, then you are a fool, as the Psalm says. And there are no fools in heaven.

, ,

Abortion, A Realistic Viewpoint by J. Reagan

In 08 Musings by Jack Reagan on 2011/06/04 at 8:00 PM

The accusation is often made that anti-abortion attitudes are a particular effort by the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church is the only church that is officially against abortion.  Few others make pro-life statements. The Catholic Church is demeaned, ridiculed, called “out of date”, “old-fashioned, “anti-woman”, “contra-cultural” and on and on.

The fact is that abortion is a moral evil, BUT NOT because the Catholic Church says it is. Abortion is an objective evil, and the Church is simply stating that fact. It is the natural moral law that all normal people sense that tells us that abortion is a moral evil. Abortion would be evil even if no religion opposed it. Abortion can be argued against successfully without even mentioning any religion because abortion is irrational.

What is to be thought of a nation that deliberately and legally kills off fifty million and still counting . . . 50,000,000 babies because they are inconvenient to someone? We rightly abhor the mass murders under Hitler, Stalin, Mao Tse-tung and others. Yet, in the U.S. it is quite legal to kill any unborn baby based merely on the mother’s wish. Peter Singer, a professor at Princeton, advocates a parental right to kill a child up to two years old if the parents think it is appropriate for them.

Legal abortion lessens the value of all human life. A few years ago in California, a request was made via TV to help a child in great need and a dog that was injured. The dog received from viewers far more money than the human child. If someone as inculpable as an unborn child can be legally killed, then who is really safe? (Ironically, most of those who support abortion are against capital punishment.) There is in Oregon a law that allows for assisted suicide. There is talk (and many say the actuality) of rationing health care in the Obama health care law. A person’s worth is to evaluated based on how much their medicine costs the taxpayer. Yet, this from a government that wastes billions every year.

Abortion leads to other naturally immoral actions. If you can kill a child, then the very idea of the immoral is diminished, and crimes against persons rise, especially crimes against women. When abortion is easily available, immoral sexual activity rises tremendously since any “mistakes” you make will be rectified by the abortionist. Every sexual sin seems to have increased in frequency with legal abortion and natural consequences like illegitimate children and sexually-transmitted disease.

A nation that condones abortion will see the impact of this evil as it spreads its negative effects throughout the nation. Since abortion is contrary to the natural moral law (as is any murder), it means that condoning abortion also violates the laws of right reasoning. Our national ability to think clearly, rationally and honestly is impaired. We begin to sanction other moral evils. We lose the ability even to see evil as evil and begin to rationalize its acceptance. Example: Same-sex marriage which is an oxymoron anyway. Those who are entrusted with preserving the common good offer solutions to problems that cannot solve the real problem. Example: The answer, for some, to any problem is to spend more money on it, failing to see that if money is not the cause of the problem, that money will not better the situation. A case in point is education at all levels. The answer to school problems is not more money, but better philosophy of education. It’s the ideas that are wrong, not the finances.

Feminism and the media are two of the most ardent and vocal proponents of abortion in the U.S.  Note that they never mention the adverse effects of abortion on the individual involved or the society as a whole, some of which can last a lifetime. These proponents always claim to be “in support of women.” What kind of  “friend” would allow a woman to deliberately choose a path of evil merely to vindicate a false philosophy. Another example of deficient thinking.

Abortion also has negative economic consequences. We have killed off part of an entire generation. The earliest victims would be in their thirties now. Most would be gainfully employed, paying taxes and supporting the Social Security Fund which is vanishing because of an insufficient number of younger contributors. As the population ages and abortion continues, the problem will not improve. Gradually, as the decline unfolds, government officials would have to take charge of more and more aspects of life, thereby diminishing our liberty and freedom more and more.

Ah, but abortion is legal: as it stands today, women  have the right to seek an abortion.  True, but what is the source of that “right”?  The Supreme Court.  However, the problem here is that no human group or group of humans can ever give anyone the “right” to violate a natural moral law.  The subordinate can never overturn the superior’s law.  Therefore, there is no valid right to abortion that would be sanctioned by the natural moral law.

About 70 years ago, Richard Weaver wrote a fascinating book entitled, “Ideas Have Consequences.” The theme was that negative and stupid ideas and philosophies lead to negative and stupid effects. Abortion was not an issue in his time, but were he alive now, I’m sure he would have had a chapter on the societal folly of abortion.

Those who advocate and practice abortion at any level do no individual or society any lasting good. Moral evil cannot lead to good effects.

When God issued the Ten Commandments, He did not make any mistakes. There is one Commandment that is specifically meant to preserve individuals and society: “Thou shall not kill”. The pro-abortion people care about neither.

The next time you hear somebody reject the idea of abortion on demand, realize that they are not being anti-anything; they are just exercising their power of correct reasoning.

, ,

“Now Let’s Not Be Judgmental!”

In 08 Musings by Jack Reagan on 2011/05/14 at 10:00 PM

How many times have we heard this or something like it. When someone says this, it is a signal to cease all conversation or discussion about a particular topic because something “offensive” might be said.

The ability to make judgments is a function of the human intellect. No other creature has this gift. There are two kinds of judgments. The first is external and objective which enables us to evaluate actions or ideas from the viewpoint of the five senses, or from a historical perspective or from past  experience.  We make these judgments routinely when we decide whether something is good or bad, wise or unwise, necessary or unnecessary, moral or immoral. Christ Himself gave guidance for these kinds of judgments when he said that we could judge something by its fruits, by its effects. He made such judgments often…when He cursed the fig tree, when He called Herod a fox, when he dispersed the money-changers.

The other type of judgment is subjective and internal. This occurs when someone declares that another person is a sinner, or that Bin Laden is in Hell, or that so and so is heading for Hell. Such judgments are not within our mental competence. We simply do not know how anyone stands in the sight of God. He is the “scrutator cordium”, the searcher of hearts and He alone knows how guilty we are or are not. Thus this kind of judgment is never allowable.  It is this kind of judgment that Christ warns us about when he tells us not to judge others. (Many erroneously use this verse to avoid all intellectual judgments.)

The modern problem with judgments does not lie in the physical or earthly realm; it lies in the spiritual realm. Thus no one objects to passing judgments on sports teams, restaurants, customer service, autos etc… But, when the topic is religion and morality, negative judgments are not wanted, even if thy are objectively true. One’s personal view of religion and morality (or lack of it) are considered to be sacrosanct and no one has the right to object on any grounds, not even logical grounds. Thus if someone equates Christianity with Islam, and many do simply because both religions worship one deity (not the same God, but a single God). Thus contradictions are quite acceptable in this attitude. The Christian who says God is a triune God  is no more right than the Moslem who claims a unitarian god.

This attitude or philosophy clouds our rational judgment. Reason rejects contradictions, but some, for the sake of “being nice” will accept all kinds of nonsense just to avoid “offending” someone. The result is a mishmash of conflicting ideas and a society wandering in a labyrinth of uncertainty and doubt.

The failure to be judgmental when it is called for means that the person who holds the objectively false idea can never be corrected. He is seen to be better off left in his error than that to be offended. (If he is offended, he might resist and come to hear valid objections to his position.)

Failure to express reservation about false ideas also means that a person is not given a better alternative and perhaps has  lost an opportunity to improve his religious or moral practice in accord with divine Revelation.

Objectively speaking, those who insist on living out their false philosophies are not living in accordance with God’s plan for the human race. We don’t have the option of rejecting God without consequences. Our free will allows us to so, but there will be consequences. Too many people today have  forgotten (if they ever knew) that man is made in the image and likeness of God. Modern man has remade God in is own image so that God is a “good ol’ boy” who severest reprimand is “Tsk, tsk”.  God is what He is whether we believe it or not, like it or not, act accordingly or not. If someone needs correcting, do it graciously and with Christian love.

In the words of St. Augustine…”Our hearts were made for thee,   O, Lord, and they will not rest until they rest in Thee.”

It requires effective and rational judgment to reach that place of rest.

, ,

Rest in Pieces

In 08 Musings by Jack Reagan on 2011/04/12 at 8:39 PM

George Santayana, the Spanish philosopher, said that those who do not learn from the lessons of history will be condemned to repeat it. This means that, if we fail to determine why people and events went wrong, they will go wrong again under similar circumstances. It appears that people do not seem to learn the lessons of history because they repeat the same mistakes over and over.

Historians tell us that world has seen about twenty-one civilizations, Greece, Rome, Egypt, Byzantium, Persia, Babylon  etc. The contemporary civilization is called “Western Civilization”. (It used to be called “Christian Civilization” and before the Enlightenment the term Europe was not used.  It was Christendom.)  All these civilizations are gone (except our own).

Sometimes the names remain, such as Greece or Rome; the former now a minor player in the world; the latter reduced to a city.  For others, the site remains, but the name passes into disuse such as the empires that preceded Iraq. All of these past civilizations had one thing in common; they all committed suicide and all in much the same way.  Not one of them, once decline had begun, ever reversed it and saved it self.

Let’s look at one of these fallen empires and see what the lessons of history tell us.  Rome was once the dominant empire and controlled the territory around the Mediterranean Sea and elsewhere.  The British historian, Arnold Toynbee, cites five reasons for the fall of Rome that can be applied to other fallen societies as well.

1. The loss of religion and morality whose influence diminished more and more as the decline advanced.

2. Severe damage to the family structure through divorce, infanticide and approved homosexuality.

3. Inordinate demands for more and more sports and entertainment.

4. Excessive taxation to pay for increasing military needs and to pay for public entertainments.

5. The constant influx of the neighboring peoples, often called the “Barbarian Invasions”. (“Barbarian” here does not refer to table manners, but simply to “foreigners”.)

By 476 A.D. the Western Roman Empire had officially collapsed.   How does it happen that a whole society can seem to blindly march to its own demise?

The following are some suggested reasons:

1. People traveling a downward path become inured to what is really happening.  Decline does not happen overnight; it is gradual.  Each downward step is seen in isolation rather than a part of an ongoing pattern of loss.

2. Those who are “enjoying” the causes of decline resist unsettling thoughts. They don’t want to stop the party and hear about possible dangers. Before the Flood, people laughed and sneered at Noah for his “folly”.  There are always voices of warning, but they are ignored as out of touch, irrelevant, fanatics  etc.

3. People become complacent in the presence of contradictions;  moral opposites are considered quite acceptable.  Ex. the release of Barabbas and the condemnation of the innocent Christ.  The idea that tax money solves all problems even when money has nothing to do with the cause of the problem. Refusing to profile those who might be terrorists because they might get upset.

4.  Eventually, the society loses its ability to think and react rationally, and, therefore, cannot seem to solve it problems because it has substituted emotion, impulse, demagoguery, name-calling, labeling  etc. in the place of reasoned discussion. This is not a pretty picture, but it is reality. It is history. Western Civilization is on the slippery slope to oblivion.

Can we apply Toynbee to the U.S.A.? Without doubt. The whole world is now in what is probably the biggest mess since the beginning of written history. For the second time, Western Civilization is faced with an onslaught by Islam.

I personally think there is no way to save ourselves except by falling on our societal knees in repentance and asking forgiveness of the much-offended God.  God has been banished from the seats of power and culture in this country. (There is not a single word about God or religion in the Constitution of the European Union.) I have heard no leader anywhere mention the importance of religion…except, of course, the Muslim leaders.

Will history repeat itself once again? It doesn’t matter. As Christians, we are very temporary residents of this planet. It is not a lasting or final home. We can certainly pray for a good outcome to the present cultural conflict. If we are true Christians, even now, we can psychologically rest in peace regardless of what events bring for good or bad.

The rest of society, having ignored is Creator-God will eventually rest in pieces.

, , ,

Baal and the Tooth Fairy

In 08 Musings by Jack Reagan on 2011/04/12 at 8:35 PM

Bible readers are familiar with the story of Elijah and the prophets of Baal. Baal was a god widely worshipped in the ancient Middle East, especially in Phoenicia, Canaan, and Babylon. Elijah challenged the prophets (priests) of Baal to a contest to determine which god, Baal or the God of Elijah was the more powerful, and could cause a fiery holocaust. The priests of Baal prayed all morning and all afternoon to no avail; nothing happened.

Before Elijah prayed, he drenched his altar and surrounding area with water, and then he called upon God to show his power. GOD did so in a spectacular display. The people believed and demonstrated this by executing all the prophets of Baal. This is one of the Bible stories that is rightly used to demonstrate the tremendous power of the God of the Bible.

But, there is another factor here too which is rarely if ever mentioned.  It takes us back to the very beginning of time. The first verse of the Bible tells us that, “In the beginning God….”This means that when God decided to create the universe and everything in it, nothing else existed except Him. When Adam and Eve were created, God was the only God around. This means that every god since then is a man-made god, and, therefore, false.

Every false god arises in the mind of some human or group of humans; they literally invent a god and proceed to worship their own invention ignoring the fact that the creature can never outrank the Creator. This is the opposite of how the true God established things at the beginning.

Objective truth does not arise in the mind of man. Objective truth exists regardless of anyoneʼs attitude toward it; 2+2=4 no matter what anyone may think about it. We may discover truth and accept it or not, but we do not invent it.

Thus, every-man made god is also non-existent in reality. It may exist in some minds, but not in reality. The prophets did not stand a chance because there WAS NO BAAL to begin with! He was only as real as the tooth fairy, or Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny.

So it is with all other made-made gods. Astarte was the female fertility goddess of the ancient Middle East, a counterpart to Baal. Her “worship” consisted mainly of ritual sex. But, she did not exist in reality either.

There is no Allah in the real world. True, there are millions of believers just as there are millions of children who believe in Santa Claus, but that does not make him real. The media has a habit of referring to Allah as “God”. Totally false. He is only a god and a made-made one at that.

In the seventh century, Arabia was a polytheistic culture; they had gods for everything.  Allah was a moon god.  Mohammed, the founder of Islam, simply elevated this moon god to special preeminence and declared that Allah was the supreme god. In the real world, Allah is the figment of the human imagination of various Arabs 1500 years ago.

Hinduism has a chief god, Brahman, plus 300 million other gods. None exist in reality. All came from human imagination. In fact, no one really knows where Hinduism came from.

Buddhism is not really a religion because it is non-theistic. (It does not concern itself with any god.) There really was a person known as Buddha, but his doctrine is so anti-human, anti-God that it becomes laughable when really analyzed. Ex. God created humans with the ability to experience various licit pleasures. Buddhists claim that all desire for pleasure is evil.

This applies to all the man-made religions and variations that have come down through time. The Kamis of Shintoism do not exist. Maroni of the Mormons does not exist. Pele, the Hawaiian goddess, does not exist. All these and others do not exist now and never did.

No human being can create a being higher in essence than himself. Even material idols such as the Golden Calf or the mass produced gods of the ancient world began in some personʼs imagination.

That may be true some will say, but these believers in false gods are “sincere, (one of the most misused words in English when it comes to religion and morality). God will take care of them. No one was a more sincere believer in Santa Claus than I was. I did all the rituals (And my father did not like cake, but I guess he had to eat the piece we put out for Santa.) I admit I believed in him probably as much as I believed in God. Very sincere and very wrong. How would you like your child attending a school where the teachers gave everyone Aʼs regardless of the answers because they were “sincere”?

The basic problem with false gods is that the doctrine that goes with is also false because it comes from a fallible human mind. Thus we have the insanity of Islamic homicide bombers, laboring in the name of Allah (who does not exist) for a reward that will never come to pass.

The doctrine of the God of the Bible comes from the infallible, inerrant God who simply does not make mistakes or “get it wrong”. The world we live in has become awash in false gods, not only the “religious” types, but other things we worship…. power, popularity, sex, money, pornography, drugs etc. These are also man-made gods, which are just as false and misleading as Baal. We are either worshipping the true God with all our mind, heart and strength, or we are being “suckered” by some false god that some dumb human told us was the latest and the greatest.