Died in obscurities...

Continuing an idea, here are some thoroughly obscure ways that people have died based upon google results.

"died in a _____ accient":

Kitten: 1
Raptor: 10 (if you haven't guessed the reference by now, you aren't going to)
Roller Skating: 5
Puppy: 1
Banana: 1
Haberdashery: 465 (wow...)
Blogging: 3240
Blagging: 4
Laughing: 6
Kiting: 57
Snake Charming: 363

At least anyone who will ever read this can take some form of solace knowing that he has not died in any of these or other obscure fashions.

~Samuel

More on "Freedom."

I obviously have this problem with excess verbiage.

"Freedom" is a word, ladies and gentlemen. Each and every word conveys a specific and unadulterated meaning before it is rent asunder by our "uncontrollable emotionality" as Ambrose has so aptly put it. So, here's a definition of "freedom" that I've come up with that I hope embodies the polar opposite of our insatiable lust:

"Freedom in man is the ability to perform any action whatsoever that does not prohibit the action of another."

Allow me to advertise that I want to perfect this definition in one way or another and would like to hear criticism of it.

Hear me out, though: assume that I am free to do whatever I want. No, a step further: everyone is free to do I whatever they want. So, since I'm free to do whatever I want and that is my assumed definition of freedom, I shall hypothetically rob a bank at gunpoint, produce seven casualties and run off with $13 million dollars. Enjoying freedom, yet? Now, by my assumed definition of "freedom," everyone can do whatever they want. However, I prevented anyone from making any move by holding them at gunpoint while in the bank, restricted and depleted the funds of a number of people, and ended the mortal lives of seven others, all while enjoying my own good freedom.

As extreme as this example is, it illustrates a point. If everyone has a right (yes, "right" is new, just assume it from the beginning!) to their freedom, have I not just thoroughly restricted those rights? Isn't freedom self-defeating if, in doing what I want, others do not do what they want?

American freedom: the type of freedom exhibited in the United States of America where some people with a lot of money and power get to do whatever they want, and everyone else does what they say.

Joke...that's a joke. The sarcastic inspecificity will break the sides and abdominals off any and all readers. [end disclaimer]

So, I have established what freedom isn't. That being, "everyone does whatever they want" because this definition is self-contradictory. Note the extremes in that sentence, though. So, there are some alternate versions that must be true (all following true syllogistical form, for those paying attention):

Some people do whatever they want.
Everyone does some of what they want.
No people do nothing they want.

Brain dump completely. Possibly more later.

~Samuel

Another rant?

...on Health Care? Oh, God save us all! *fire rains down from the heavens*

But, yeah, it's fun to talk on controversial issues. Regardless, though, I'm really only goaded on to action because somebody on an e-mail list I am a part of decided to grab for attention and make a drama moment by saying he congratulated Obama on passing health care. Now, normally I don't want to make a fallacy of relevance, but it would also be unfair to make the fallacy of sweeping generalization, wouldn't it?

This member of the list and some/most/many/a few/[ambiguous amount] of the members supporting him (that I know of -- it's a big number, so I won't make the fallacy of hasty generalization -- refer to ambiguous list of ambiguous amounts of ultimate ambiguity (of spamming the word "ambiguous" and all its known forms!)) are on some form of governmental support (wellfare, extended unemployment, blah, blah, blah...). Now, I could attack his actual argument, but that's no fun since I have so many talk show hosts whom I can cite for that, and that just makes me sound like a wacko conformist (refer to previous post). But let me make a non-argument...

...the people that congratulated Obama were already relying on government support.

Just a thought, I swear!

Not to sound like Glenn Beck, but that's just really, really weird, izzenit? Okay, now back to something that sounds remotely intelligent.

I really want to mention that almost every argument I hear from everybody (quite frequently including myself, most regretably) is based around [dramatic music] emotion. Interesting, huh? Yah i kno, rite? Roflololol soisoi (Ambrose will get that). Okay, but seriously now! In spite of the fact that universal rules are nigh-on impossible to make, it is really quite universal (moreso than most!) that emotional arguments that rely on the emotions for their strength are logically fallacious. Granted that in this day and age the one who wins is the one who talks loudest and longest...that aside!

Emotions are human.
Humans are flawed.
Emotions are flawed.

Syllogistical form -- expanding upon the first statement, I say emotions are "human" because there is the undeniable fact that certain emotions are entirley characteristic of human beings as well as the expression of them.

Okay, so I'm not increidbly logically superior, am I? Hypocritical as I am, I do hope my point is across. I also hope I brightened up your day with my pseudo-witty sarcasm.

~Samuel

Tower...!

I swear, if I ever see that Redemption card again, I'll tear it to shreds.

But...hey! Look! An update! (crowd: omg!)

Was thinking on the seemingly eternal bus ride this morning on how to analogize the relationship between faith and reason. What did I get? A tower.

As faith flourishes it grows taller and grander in heavenly glory, taller as it grows closer to God and grander, like I said, in heavenly glory. However, no matter how tall or grand a tower may be, if it does not reach directly to heaven it is doomed to come crashing down at the onslaught of the storm. Why?

Heresy first: we can know God. This is, of course, not true. God is a mystical, all-powerful deity who created us without the ability to know God for we would [insert inspirational quote about seeing God here]. This makes perfect sense. And be aware, God's works are more often embodied in the spiritual than through the corporal, and the devil works on us in corporal ways. Makes sense, right? That's good.

Truth second: we can know of God. That's a vital difference. Granted, our God is a personal God as well as a universal God. I hope that wasn't a heresy just because that's my take. Why? Glad you asked.

We know of God because His existence is proven in His creation. Grounded in the depths of the earth where they'd like to say is proof of evolution is the undeniable proof of the fact that our creator is God Himself. No, not literally, I just thought that sounded epic and hopefully you get the idea.

Blind faith is foundationless. And no matter how glorified blind faith is, it is still blind, and cannot see the twists and turns in the narrow road to heaven. Furthermore, it is blind to other people, and though it may possess great virtue it will never cease to frustrate, for no person on this planet will understand the nature of groundless belief (unless, of course, it involves sexual intercourse...heh).

And so the foundation of reason gives rise to the most glorious and sturdy towers. The more grounded the reason, the deeper the foundation, and the greater the storms it will outlast. Termites and infestations will occur, but can do no harm to the reality that proof of God lays about us in as many quantities as there are atoms in the observable universe (10^72, I think). No, I don't have to prove myself, because now I'm speaking to those who believe, so atheists and go and brood for a while if they happen to read this. I'm happy to know I inflamed them.

Anyways, hurray, probably an incomplete analogy, too. But at least it sounds cool...right?

~Samuel

A Christian Response...

...to the killing of an abortionist: May the Lord grant mercy.

Well worth reading every sentence of.

A Note of Respect

I've recently blogged about the possibility of having to replace and/or secede from the existing government of the US. A while before that in a post on preparing for possible civil unrest I linked to a spectacular blog by the title of the Yeoman Farmer. Today I noticed a post there that I'd like to echo in regard to my positions political and societal.

The Yeoman Farmer makes note of a very good rule of thumb concerning troublesome laws: "if you don't like the rules in your state or your country, advocate for and work to change them --- but don't flaunt and break them unless you're being asked to do something immoral or unconscionable." I'd heartily agree, and as I do write from time to time about the need for a government better on levels that might be best achieved with a new Constitution I wish to add something on top of that.

Don't harm your fellow man to try to bring about more justice, freedom, or anything else good. It just doesn't work that way. On a more practical level, as noted in one of my recent posts, it is treason against the US to make war on it/them, so you lose a certain amount of your freedom to make your change if you go about it that way. On a purely moral level, it is absurd to claim you are protecting the good of man by hurting him. That's not to say that the new system's help to society must be flawless or it invalidates itself: anything better than the existing system will do in that respect; but you cannot free people by giving them a new government by force, nor make people safe by needless physical harm

I guess what I'm saying is, if I ever sound like a revolutionary, keep in mind both that I'm also a bit of a pacifist who would not approve of violent revolution unless the tyrant to be removed was directly inflicting worse violence (and directly inflicting does not mean merely implementing programs that have serious adverse consequences), and that I don't approve of disobeying the law when the law still applicably exists.

Preparing for War or the Dark Ages

I don't know what's going to happen to our country. In fact, I'm pretty sure almost nobody knows. But if you think loony extremists who are always freaking out anyway are the only people too seriously concerned, you'd better look again. Most of us may not be as worried about preparing to protect ourselves and/or hunt our own food as we are simply about keeping our jobs. Nonetheless, there is a notable increase of late in Americans stocking up on ammo and guns.

Myself, I'm young and I don't care to go through the legal hassles... if things collapse, I'll just make a bow and arrow set out of plastic coat hangers, rubber bands and stakes (a relative of mine did this for fun a long time ago, it works great) and nunchaku out of the small logs in my backyard and anything I can find to serve as rope (I've never been trained in them, but I've toyed with the dynamics of string with and without weighty things on the end long enough that I bet I could teach myself... with enough practice... to be effective enough against common thugs, any animal I need to hit, and/or zombies, even if helpless against any real martial artist...). And I don't even have to go through legal hassles about non-gun weapons because I don't even have to make them ahead of a collapse because I've got what I need here. Meanwhile, going to college, I'm prepared if things don't collapse. Come to think of it, I'm covered.

So, folks, be aware, and put a little thinking into what you can do to be covered either way too, and then don't worry -- but do keep yourselves aware.

Orthodox Rabbi Supports Papa Ben

Fr. Z has the scoop. I tried to repost it but I couldn't find an easy way to copy his formatting (emphases and [comments], ya know) and was too lazy to reproduce it "by hand" (so to speak) and didn't want you to miss seeing this with his highlights. So just go over there and read it, now. It's worth it, trust me.

Real thought?

This is an interesting proposal. All it's missing is the noise in the bushes argument -- although it includes mention of the point of said argument, that unless we really know that the fetus/embryo/whatever is not human we cannot risk murder. We could very well say it's not worth our time to speculate on something that we don't think is going to happen. However, there are two problems with that: one, that just because we shouldn't expect good things such as conversion doesn't mean we should despair of them either, and two, that there are some things about the hypothetical situation that may very well be relevant to other, some real, situations. What interests me specifically is the possible reaction should Obama take up the idea.

My question, then, is this: is there a way he could present it that genuinely would stimulate real thought, and niether be just dismissed by conservatives as being wishy-washy intellectual fakery nor be simply taken by liberals as a call to uphold flimsy rationalization as justification?

Sheavings

If my post a little while back got you thinking that I think Mark Shea sounds bad, I misled you. I actually love reading his writing. The post title apologizing for sounding like him was another one of my stupid attempts to respond to something that had never been said yet -- and probably never will be said, and the preemptive response to which only confuses people who don't know what I'm trying to respond to. I meant to blow off anyone who hates the way he tears apart stupid comments.

Enough about that. The point of this post is, I love reading Mark Shea. So much so that I've collected several quotes from him. Not all of these are even the ones he repeats all the time (like "Sin makes you stupid."). It's just whatever stood out to me.

So if you're free to laugh and learn at the same time, read on. For some of them I'll provide some context to make their points more evident, though I didn't record much context because they stand on their own for me.

-

At the religious end of the spectrum is the implication that to call the deeds of a men "evil" is to somehow declare that you know his eternal destiny or desire his damnation. This is rubbish.

-

One of the stupidities of modern political discourse is the notion that "As long as somebody isn't Hitler, then whatever they do is probably okay."

(Believe it or not, I don't think that was about Godwin's Law... but then I don't remember exactly what it was about either.)
-

This is as legal as the Nuremburg Laws, as long as you don't trouble yourself with Augustine's pesky observation that "an unjust law is no law at all".

(On the assertion that since something that would otherwise be obviously gravely immoral was declared legal we needn't worry about the morality of it.)
-

Throw off the shackles of the Catholic Faith...
...and make yourself a prisoner of the fear of Intergalactic Alien Attack instead.

(On the silliness of some who want to escape the religion.)
-

Every once in a while godless editors look up from their monitors and are astonished to find religion is still there. Then they announce it is "back"--as though it had left.

-

Personally, I think it's due, not to the circumstances in which we find ourselves but to the selves we find in our circumstances.

-

For the great artist is great not because he makes people feel something no one has ever felt, but because he makes them feel something everyone has always felt.

(And, I note, usually to the effect that we better understand it.)
-
And one I give from memory because it stuck with me but apparently never noted down (or noted down elsewhere?)...

The earth isn't sacred because she's a goddess. She isn't even sacred because she's our mother. She's sacred because she's our sister.

-

The longer I live, the more the counsel "Save yourself from this corrupt generation" seems like practical common sense and not mere religious enthusiasm.

-

If the bishops are interested in listening to actual youth (not to mention the Holy Father), they will note that what youth actually respond to is not bishops trying to disco, but bishops who challenge them to heroism. That's the secret both John Paul and Benedict understand and that's why there is such a disparity between the volcanic response of youth to the Pontiffs and the "Whatever" eyerolls of youth at the trendinesses of the English [and some American!] bishops.

-

One mark of progressive dissent is the extreme reverence paid to bureaucratic committees.

-

One of the fun things about being Catholic is that you are not only the locus of all evil in the universe for so many different people, but your pure evilness is evil for absolutely contradictory reasons! Sooner or later, you start to wonder (if you are not Catholic but still reasonably thoughtful), "What is this thing that people are so anxious to contradict that in doing so, they do not mind contradicting themselves?"

-

That's not, by the way, because our bishops are profiles in courage. It's because the Holy Spirit, the Soul of the Church, is the guarantor of revelation and our arms are too short to box with Him.

-

Everybody knows that Christmas is really just a warmed-over Celebration of the Feast of the Sol Invictus

Guess what? Everybody's wrong!

(As this quote makes rather a claim, here's the backup.)
-
(On our reaction to grave blasphemies and/or injustices [think last time you got really mad about something]...)

And all of a sudden our barbaric ancestors are revealed to be… people. People who felt exactly the way we feel when we see great evil done.

-

I suspect the enemies of the Church who are always banging on about how the Church is all about guilt and shame will suddenly discover that the Church is (like her Lord) scandalously merciful...

(For example, she lets people back who still are dealing with the Holocaust-denying kooks in their ranks...)
-

Now that you've read those, I'll make note of the following: he could use some help remembering that the majority of people in the real world are not like the majority of the people on the internet, what with all the stupidity-fighting he has to do on his own blog alone. So, in that interest, I quote myself on a suggestion I recently made...

On a more serious note, sometimes I consider trying to organize a minimovement to reassure Mark Shea that plenty of us out here in the real world are perfectly sane and these weirdos he has to deal with are not the majority of most groups of people. We'd poll all our real-world friends about the issues everybody here on the 'net gets screwed up and report the generally good results back to him regularly. He wouldn't have to blow off steam as often, and we'd get more blogging from him that isn't based on complaining about just how many people are just how crazy. Once the method has been going successfully for a while, it'll spread to other Catholic bloggers who struggle with the same, and maybe even wander out of the blogosphere to help real-world friends who get fed up with the world.

Anyone up for the project?

Why worry about the election...

When you could be praying for the opportunity to turn around that the Jesuits have at the moment?

At least, assuming they didn't finish in a week. Hurry up and get prayin', with these people you never know. 8^)

After all, prior to getting messed up they were some of the greatest missionaries we had, and you know we need more and better missionaries in the neo-pagan world today.

Advent

"Coming".

The world likes to get hyped about Christmas coming. Hyped liked a dog at the sight and smell (smell especially, for most dogs) of an endless supply of fresh meat. Hyped like that little guy in Over the Hedge who dashes around at blinding speed and can hardly settle himself enough to say anything important. In fact, that's just the problem with getting hyped.

A few gifted souls out there look, see and think best when they're worked up. The rest of us, not so much so. True, we get things done better while worked up. Meaning, though, usually has to be taken for granted in such states.

So when Red Cardigan at And Sometimes Tea posted on the whole "Holiday" thing, I knew I would be linking it about today.

Red Cardigan points out that not only is the world refusing to acknowledge the meaning of Christmas, but we as Christians and especially Catholics are losing our traditional period of preparation to look at that meaning.

Advent.

If something meaningful is coming, say a wedding, you want to prepare for it. However, you want to prepare for it in far more important ways than just having the decorations up. If someone gets too stressed with those surface preparations to be prepared internally, say when a wedding is coming up, we alway remind them to step back, stop worrying the cake will be perfect and let themselves just think about that which the cake is for.

Let's not just try to retake Christmas. Let's retake Advent. If we retake Christmas from those who don't want to mention its name, that's great. If we don't have our fair chance to actually sit back and think about Christmas' meaning, it doesn't matter. Let's retake that time, those three to four weeks, for doing just that.

Now for an artistic defense.

NOTE: Please read this before continuing.

Beauty is that which according to its nature is directed towards pleasing. Is it better to have pleasure or to be pleased? Well, if one has pleasure but is displeased, one isn't happy. If one is pleased even without pleasure, one is fairly happy. So then, it shouldn't matter whether we find it enjoyable to do something as much as it matters whether that something is beautiful.

Now, which is more beautiful: the "Holiday" rush for superficial things or the serenity of sitting back and thinking about the meaning?

Duh.

Advent.

Holy Whapsters Report Movement in Hoped-For Orthodox/Catholic Reunion

Drew has some good comments as well as a fair summary of the progress itself. Sorry I don't have much to add, just a couple points...

1: Dom Gueranger's The Papal Monarchy is an excellent defence of the primacy of the Pope.

2: With Muslims flooding Europe once again, it would be handy to have the Orthodox out there in the East to be able to help us out... somehow. As I believe I've said, I don't believe in just plain chasing down all violent Muslims because that pretty much creates more violent Muslims and because it's, well, impractical; but if they actually attack us in some manner, then we fight back if reasonably possible.

Viva la Familia!

The Blue Boar reports that studies find family dinners to be quite beneficial, and Captain Hat reports that studies find homeschooling to be quite beneficial, with the end result in my mind being that political correctness is stupid to ignore the Catholic Philosophers' traditional assertion that the family is the natural and therefore best place for a growing person to grow.

The Love-Letter of a Martyr

The Shrine of the Holy Whapping has been rather sporadic in it's updating the past week or so, so I keep coming back and finding this one thing still the latest post. Well, no matter how many times it pops up I just can't get over it. Finally I decided this just deserves to be linked to.

I mean, one could argue that it sounds slightly overdone since we aren't specifically going to be married to anyone other than God Himself in Heaven. Yet when you think about it loving God in others is part of what Heaven is, as Heaven is all about loving God as fully as possible, and this really shows the connection what with loving God in another and all. Face it: it's incredible. As someone who so far has little clue as to which God desires for his primary vocation, I must say I hope I will be as God-oriented if I find myself seriously drawn to a lady.

In other news, The Blue Boar reports that more details on Papa Ben's US visit are out! Waaaaaaay cool!

Christian Blogging Changes Lives!

The former atheist at Et tu? raises a question of blogging and Christian duty. I myself don't have anything to add to the answers other commenters gave, but I think it is awesome that Catholic moms' blogging helped her convert!

Artists unite!

Anti-classists beware! My sister-in-law has a blog for her artwork now!

Some Good Logic on Infallibility

I was recently looking through the various blogs I try to check up on at least weekly, when over at Arkanabar's Eclectic Rants (no longer really the blog nobody reads, although that still makes a funny subtitle) I discovered a wonderful bit of logic on infallibility and doctrine that (surprisingly) I'd never seen put so well. I don't know whether it just stood out more when arranged the way he arranged it, or if I just never read the right section of the Catechism to find it in there, or why else I haven't seen it put so clearly before; but I'm passing it on for anyone else whom it may help. It shows how, based on some simple and common Christian beliefs, it's perfectly natural (not intolerant) to expect there to be some infallibility involved.

1. God loves us all.
2. God gave us free will.
3. We are separated from God by sin.
4. God devised ONE means by which that separation could be repaired (His plan of salvation), which includes the things we must believe and how we must live.
5. God desires that all of us be saved.
6. God can do all things.

From 2 and 3, we can conclude that God expected some of us to corrupt the One plan of salvation mentioned in 4. But from 1, 5, and 6, we can conclude that God would also ensure that His plan of Salvation in 4 would be preserved from corruption, and furthermore, that it would be widely available and widely recognized. In other words, God would ensure there was an authority on earth that would preserve and promote His one plan of salvation.

Hopefully that makes it fairly clear why the Church and Catholics believe in the need for infallible authority. It has nothing to do with any contradictory preference "for certainty rather than truth", which is impossible anyway since certainty in itself implies truth. However, a lot of misconceptions float around as to what Catholics believe to be infallibly defined and what not. I'll try and clear that up here as well. From what I know, it pretty much goes as follows:

1: Only matters relevant to Salvation, namely those of faith and those of morals, are bothered with by the Church's Magisterium*.
-This means that if the Pope ever tells his favorite sports team you don't even have to check whether that's infallibly defined. On the other hand, if the Church defines morals as they apply to sports, that is still the Church's jurisdiction because it's morals. The same goes for many things where people mistakenly believe the Church is meddling in politics when she in fact is ruling morals that are more powerful than any political theory, body or practice. On the other hand, it is true that the Church can only give advice, not infallible doctrine, on the best applications of this morality in terms of prudence, as opposed to other applications that don't specifically go against the morals she teaches. For example, we should give the Pope's advice careful consideration when he speaks personally (see point 3) against a certain war, but keep in mind that he is not protected from error in dealing with such particular matters. If his objection is based on a defined moral principle and something it applies to that we know is true, we have to take it (not because it is infallibly defined itself but because it is a certain application of the infallibly defined). If there is uncertainty as to whether this thing it applies to actually is as he believes it is, or if in terms of the moral objection to it he is going out on a limb (in terms of definitiveness, not in terms of how crazy it may sound to unaccustomed ears), then in those cases we are of course allowed to be uncertain.

2: The matter must be declared by the authority in the Church. This means it is either -
a: defined by the Pope,
b: defined by a universal council convened by the Pope and the teaching of which is approved by the Pope, or
c: has been taught by virtually every Church teacher since virtually always and has not needed clarification.
(Sometimes it is said that if all the Bishops agree on something, then it is infallibly defined; however, the three above are more accurate and I'd be surprised to see all the bishops agree on anything unless it was already made clear by one of those means. Also, in the case where clarification of a -c- case is needed, then -a- or -b- must come into play.)

3: The matter must be declared officially.
-I could have summed the previous point and this one together by saying "declared authoritatively", which implies both authority and definitive use of the authority, but it's clearer for most to show the two separately. Basically, even the Pope, who has authority, doesn't always have to use it. This is why, in the first point, it is possible for him to give personal advice on whether he thinks a particular war is justified or whose team is the coolest (not that any good Pope would likely have time for that, but you never know *wink*) without running into a contradiction with point 2.

In practice, these mean that something is infallible when the Pope (or, similarly, a full council of the Church called under the Pope's authority) says he is teaching it as guardian of the Truth and Shepherd of the Church, or something to that effect (language of "looking on the world with Our paternal eye as from a watchtower" has been used, for example). He'll spell it out somehow that it's meant for the whole Church to hear as part of the Truth he is there to keep. (A council will usually declare its teaching definitive with the words "Whoever does not believe this, let him be anathema**.")

Incidentally, when the Church continues defining Dogmas***, it's not because people haven't had everything they needed for Salvation or because in principle people living later need more for Salvation. Whatever the Church defines today (or at any time since the Apostles, for that matter) has been implied by earlier doctrine. Generally the Church continues making these implicit things explicit for two reasons: either because there is confusion or dispute about these details, or to give us more knowledge of God and what He has done, so that we can love Him more deeply.

In closing I'd like to ask, in the event any Protestant should wander in here, if there is a system they have for satisfying the conditions set forth above by Ark, but without the Pope? I don't mean to be argumentive, I just want to be able to know where others are coming from (even if I disagree with it).

~Scott

*The Magisterium is the teaching authority of the Church (the name comes from the Latin for teacher, in case anyone wonders).

**Anathema: cast out of the Church due to refusal to be within the Church doctrinally.

***Dogma: doctrine clarified to clear up confusion or dispute.