Morally Corrosive

"And “morally corrosive” is exactly the term that some critics would apply to the new science of the moral sense. The attempt to dissect our moral intuitions can look like an attempt to debunk them. Evolutionary psychologists seem to want to unmask our noblest motives as ultimately self-interested — to show that our love for children, compassion for the unfortunate and sense of justice are just tactics in a Darwinian struggle to perpetuate our genes. The explanation of how different cultures appeal to different spheres could lead to a spineless relativism, in which we would never have grounds to criticize the practice of another culture, no matter how barbaric, because “we have our kind of morality and they have theirs.” And the whole enterprise seems to be dragging us to an amoral nihilism, in which morality itself would be demoted from a transcendent principle to a figment of our neural circuitry.

Here is the worry. The scientific outlook has taught us that some parts of our subjective experience are products of our biological makeup and have no objective counterpart in the world. The qualitative difference between red and green, the tastiness of fruit and foulness of carrion, the scariness of heights and prettiness of flowers are design features of our common nervous system, and if our species had evolved in a different ecosystem or if we were missing a few genes, our reactions could go the other way. Now, if the distinction between right and wrong is also a product of brain wiring, why should we believe it is any more real than the distinction between red and green? And if it is just a collective hallucination, how could we argue that evils like genocide and slavery are wrong for everyone, rather than just distasteful to us?"

https://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/13/magazine/13Psychology-t.html

What Is The Origin Of The Assumption of Mary?

        The Assumption of Mary was not officially declared to be an article of the Roman Catholic faith until 1950 by Pope Pius XII:

        "The Immaculate Mother of God, the ever Virgin Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory” (Munificentissimus Deus).

        The Roman Catholic Catechism explains this dogma in the following manner:

        "Finally the Immaculate Virgin, preserved free from all stain of original sin, when the course of her earthly life was finished, was taken up body and soul into heavenly glory, and exalted by the Lord as Queen over all things, so that she might be the more fully conformed to her Son, the Lord of lords and conqueror of sin and death." The Assumption of the Blessed Virgin is a singular participation in her Son's Resurrection and an anticipation of the resurrection of other Christians." (CCC #966)

        Enoch (Genesis 5:24), Elijah (2 Kings 2:11), and Jesus (Acts 1:9) are people recorded in Scripture as being bodily assumed into heaven. There is no such reference for Mary. Why would this not be recorded in Scripture? Ludwig Ott, in his book titled Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, p. 209–210, says:

        "The idea of the bodily assumption of Mary is first expressed in certain transitus–narratives of the fifth and sixth centuries. Even though these are apocryphal they bear witness to the faith of the generation in which they were written despite their legendary clothing. The first Church author to speak of the bodily ascension of Mary, in association with an apocryphal transitus B.M.V., is St. Gregory of Tours’."

        The Catholic Encyclopedia tells us that the first "authentic" references to the bodily assumption of Mary can be found in writings dated to the sixth through eight centuries:  

        “The belief in the corporeal assumption of Mary is founded on the apocryphal treatise De Obitu S. Dominae, bearing the name of St. John, which belongs however to the fourth or fifth century. It is also found in the book De Transitu Virginis, falsely ascribed to St. Melito of Sardis, and in a spurious letter attributed to St. Denis the Areopagite. If we consult genuine writings in the East, it is mentioned in the sermons of St. Andrew of Crete, St. John Damascene, St. Modestus of Jerusalem and others. In the West, St. Gregory of Tours (De gloria mart., I, iv) mentions it first. The sermons of St. Jerome and St. Augustine for this feast, however, are spurious.”

        The Assumption of Mary itself is just an assumption based on pious legends. This Roman Catholic dogma is apocryphal in origin. 

Who Is The Woman Of Revelation 12?

        The Roman Catholic Church has taught as dogma a plethora of unbiblical and spurious ideas about Mary. It has traditionally identified the "woman" figure of Revelation 12 to be Mary, the mother of Jesus Christ. This interpretation of Revelation 12:1-2 has been a springboard for the development of doctrines such as the bodily assumption of Mary, her being called the Queen of Heaven, and the Mother of the Church. It accounts for the existence of portraits with her being dressed in cosmic clothing standing over the world. Belief in the assumption of Mary is the logical outworking of belief in her remaining sinless for her entire earthly life.

        Pope Pius XII wrote in an Apostolic Constitution, “The scholastic Doctors have recognized the Assumption of the Virgin Mother of God as something signified, not only in various figures of the Old Testament, but also in that woman clothed with the sun whom John the Apostle contemplated on the Island of Patmos.” (Munificentissimus Deus)

         Observe how Revelation 12:2 depicts this "woman" figure as experiencing birth pangs. Also, a part of the curse of original sin is pain during childbirth (Genesis 3:16). The Roman Catholic interpretation of Revelation 12 is weakened because according to official Roman Catholic teaching, Mary was preserved from receiving a fallen nature. Thus, she could not experience pain when bearing children. However, this is clearly not the case, according to Revelation 12:2. 

          The text identifies "her" as being in distress. If Mary was sinless, then she would not have endured pain in labor. A rejoinder to this could be that the birth pangs spoken of in Revelation 12:2 possibly refer to something painful in the life of Mary such as witnessing the crucifixion of her own Son, but that is merely speculative and hypothetical. There are other problems with claiming that Mary is mentioned in Revelation 12 besides this.

         If Mary is the woman clothed under the sun, then does that mean that she has eagle's wings (Revelation 12:14)? Where in Scripture do we ever hear of Mary going to Egypt to be fed for 1,260 days? What about the fact that the flight of this "woman" took place after Jesus Christ's ascension to God's throne (Revelation 12:5-6)? Did Mary have children who experienced persecution in the wilderness (Revelation 12:17)? The Roman Catholic New American Bible Revised Edition gives this interpretation of the "woman" figure of Revelation 12:

        "[12:1] The woman adorned with the sun, the moon, and the stars (images taken from Gn 37:9–10) symbolizes God’s people in the Old and the New Testament. The Israel of old gave birth to the Messiah (Rev 12:5) and then became the new Israel, the church, which suffers persecution by the dragon (Rev 12:6, 13–17); cf. Is 50:1; 66:7; Jer 50:12."

        Marius Victorinus, in his Commentary on the Apocalypse, wrote concerning the identity of the woman in Revelation 12:1-2:

        "The woman clothed with the sun, and having the moon under her feet, and wearing a crown of twelve stars upon her head, and travailing in her pains, is the ancient Church of fathers, and prophets, and saints, and apostles, which had the groans and torments of its longing until it saw that Christ, the fruit of its people according to the flesh long promised to it, had taken flesh out of the selfsame people…."

        Karl Keating, in his book titled Catholicism And Fundamentalism, p. 275, writes in regard to biblical evidence for the assumption of Mary:

        "...fundamentalists ask, where is the proof from Scripture? Strictly, there is none. The mere fact that the Church teaches the doctrine of the Assumption as something definitely true is a guarantee that it is true."

        As a side note, one cannot help but sense the irony of Keating's critiques of fundamentalists. He criticizes them for relying solely on Scripture in determining the truthfulness of doctrine, yet he similarly relies solely on the authority of the Roman Catholic Church to defend the assumption of Mary. This creates an ironic parallel in his use of unwavering adherence to a single source of doctrinal authority. Keating acts just like the kind of person that he so disagrees with.

        The best case scenario for one who makes the argument that Revelation 12 supports the assumption of Mary would be one that is inconclusive. We cannot fully grasp every aspect of the symbolism of the Book of Revelation, since its time and culture of composition is foreign to us. Finally, a twofold interpretation of this passage (i.e. that the "woman" is both Mary and the people of God) would be highly unlikely and only contrived to put in motion a self-serving agenda. It would be problematic due to its interpretative complexity, leading to confusion between the symbolic meanings of Mary and the church. Blending these interpretations can only create contextual inconsistencies, as certain elements might align more naturally with one interpretation over the other.

Human Reason Ultimately Points To God

"It is true, that a little philosophy inclineth man's mind to atheism, but depth in philosophy bringeth men's minds about to religion: for while the mind of man looketh upon second causes scattered, it may sometimes rest in them, and go no further; but when it beholdeth the chain of them confederate, and linked together, it must needs fly to providence and deity."

Sir Francis Bacon, A Father Of The Scientific Method (1561-1626)

Eucharistic Miracles And Transubstantiation

          "If any one...denies that wonderful and singular conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the Body, and of the whole substance of the wine into the Blood-the species only of the bread and wine remaining-which conversion indeed the Catholic Church most aptly calls Transubstantiation; let him be anathema." (Council of Trent, Thirteen Session, Canon 2)

          The above cited excerpt states that the appearance of the bread and wine remains the same, despite the substance being mysteriously transformed into the literal fullness of Christ's flesh, blood, soul, and divinity by the priest. Only the substance of the consecrated elements are changed by the priest. Therefore, the dogma of transubstantiation involves a miracle that cannot be detected by our five senses. 

         Eucharistic miracles are said to be observable to the people who are present at the mass. This is a problem for the Roman Catholic position because according to official church dogma, the appearance of the transubstantiated elements remains completely unchanged. These allegedly supernatural occasions do not fit the Roman Catholic definition of transubstantiation. 

          If the body and blood of Jesus Christ appear to be bread and wine after this "miraculous" change takes place, then people who claim to see flesh or taste blood cannot use such episodes to support the idea of transubstantiation. Catholic dogma is contradicted by eucharistic miracles. Since transubstantiation is touted as a miracle, does that mean eucharistic miracles involve the undoing of something already miraculous?

          If one wishes to defend transubstantiation, then he is required to embrace all sorts of bizarre contradictions in logic. He has to devise convoluted sounding theories as to how such could only possibly be valid. In addition, Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light (2 Corinthians 11:13-15). He can perform counterfeit miracles. Hence, we have no good reason to accept eucharistic "miracles" as proof of transubstantiation.

The Jerusalem Council And Sola Scriptura

• Discussion:

          -Roman Catholic apologists point to the Jerusalem Council of Acts 15 as evidence against the doctrine of Sola Scriptura. It is argued that the Apostle Peter had acted in his official capacity as pope during that instance and not on the teaching of Scripture itself:

          "So we see that Peter is the one who rules definitively on the question of doctrine, and all kept silent. His bishops then spoke in favor of his teaching, acknowledging that Peter was indeed the authority in the Church. No one questions Peter’s judgment. Then we have James who speaks in favor of Peter’s teaching by giving an opinion on a pastoral issue. Hardly a challenge to the authority of Peter...Acts 15 disproves the doctrine of sola Scriptura. If Peter would have relied upon the Scriptures, he would have concluded that Gentiles had to be circumcised, since all the Patriarchs and prophets were, the apostles were, and even Jesus was. But Peter, by virtue of his authority, decides the issue as the chief shepherd of the Church (and the decision was not based on the Scriptures)."

          Paul and Barnabas traveled to Jerusalem to meet with the apostles and elders. Peter is a part of the group, but nowhere given any special position or recognition (Acts 15:2). The apostles and elders assembled to resolve the dispute (Acts 15:6). However, Peter is nowhere said to be in a unique or isolated position. He does make a number of comments, but his words were not treated as the final authority. James shows that the words of Peter are in harmony with the prophets. He also provides his own thoughts on the matter. If Peter's word was decisive in this council, then there would have been no need for James to make his thoughts known.

          The Jerusalem Council, which addressed the issue of circumcision and claims of it being necessary for salvation, had subjugated itself to the supreme authority of Scripture. Notice how the text of Acts 15:15-18 begins, "The words of the prophets are in agreement with this, as it is written..." That statement is obviously an appeal to the Scriptures as the final source of authority in resolving a theological dispute. It is a quotation of Amos 9:11-12. The underlying theme of this council centers around the inclusion of the Gentiles into the gospel. The New Testament de-emphasizes Jewish ceremonial laws such as circumcision. 

          The Old Testament teaches circumcision of the heart (Leviticus 26:41; Deuteronomy 10:16; Jeremiah 9:25-26; Romans 2:28-29). Further, God had reckoned righteousness to Abraham through faith (Genesis 15:6; Romans 4:9-11) prior to his circumcision (Genesis 17:10). That ritual was never necessary for salvation, despite being commanded by God. Therefore, the Jerusalem Council had based its rulings on Scripture. It was James who had presided over this gathering, not Peter. He said, "It is my judgment..." (Acts 15:19). He made authoritative statements on this matter, using Scripture as his guide. It was not based on the tradition of the fathers or resolved by a papal decree.

           If anything at all, the Jerusalem Council of Acts 15 is only supportive of the supremacy of scriptural authority. Moreover, an epistle which was written and circulated to the churches as a result of the heresies promoted by the Judaizers made no mention of "Pope Peter" at all (Acts 15:23-29). Verse 22 says, "Then it seemed good to the apostles and the elders, with the whole church." Verse 23 says, "The apostles and elders, your brothers." This is evidence that the earliest Christian churches were governed by pluralities of elders, not a single human arbitrator headquartered in Rome.

C.S. Lewis On Human Reason

"All possible knowledge, then, depends on the validity of reasoning. If the feeling of certainty which we express by words like must be and therefore and since is a real perception of how things outside our minds really “must” be, well and good. But if this certainty is merely a feeling in our own minds and not a genuine insight into realities beyond them—if it merely represents the way our minds happen to work—then we can have no knowledge. Unless human reasoning is valid no science can be true.

It follows that no account of the universe can be true unless that account leaves it possible for our thinking to be a real insight. A theory which explained everything else in the whole universe but which made it impossible to believe that our thinking was valid, would be utterly out of court. For that theory would itself have to be reaching by thinking, and if thinking is not valid that theory would, of course, be itself demolished…It would be an argument which proved that no arguments was sound—a proof that there are no such things as proofs—which is nonsense."

C.S. Lewis, Miracles, p. 23-24

Primitive Churches Were Not Governed By A Pope

"The presbyter is the same as the bishop, and before parties had been raised up in religion by the provocations of Satan, the churches were governed by the Senate of the presbyters. But as each one sought to appropriate to himself those whom he had baptized, instead of leading them to Christ, it was appointed that one of the presbyters, elected by his colleagues, should be set over all the others, and have chief supervision over the general well-being of the community. . .Without doubt it is the duty of the presbyters to bear in mind that by the discipline of the Church they are subordinated to him who has been given them as their head, but it is fitting that the bishops, on their side, do not forget that if they are set over the presbyters, it is the result of tradition, and not by the fact of a particular institution by the Lord."

Jerome's commentary on Titus 1:7

A Critique Of The Secular Humanist Worldview

• Discussion:

          -There are various kinds of humanism that have been held to, ranging all the way back to Greco-Roman civilization. For instance, Desiderius Erasmus was a Catholic humanist, but the context of this article concerns the atheistic variety. Following are a handful of excerpts in bold from a classic humanist manifesto titled "The Philosophy of Humanism" by Corliss Lamont, with a critique of those assertions:

          "There are, as I see it, ten central propositions in the Humanist philosophy: First, Humanism believes in a naturalistic metaphysics or attitude toward the universe that considers all forms of the supernatural as myth; and that regards Nature as the totality of being and as a constantly changing system of matter and energy which exists independently of any mind or consciousness. Second, Humanism, drawing especially upon the laws and facts of science, believes man is an evolutionary product of the Nature of which he is part; that his mind is indivisibly conjoined with the functioning of his brain; and that as an inseparable unity of body and personality he can have no conscious survival after death.”

          It is interesting to note how the author of this book capitalizes the word nature. This could be interpreted to have religious connotations. It can even be argued that atheists themselves belong to a religion to which they themselves are their own gods. After all, there are atheist churches. There are atheist missionaries. There are evangelistic atheists who preach their worldview as being the truth. There are atheist circles that consider others who disagree with them as being heretical. Atheism is clearly a belief system with religious tendencies.

          Notice how the quotation above presupposes the validity of scientism, which is the belief that all truth is determined by the science laboratory. However, this view is refuted because there are many truths that exist beyond the realm of science (view full article). How can atheists be so quick to claim that there is no supernatural realm when they have no tangible evidence ruling in favor of their verdict? If we reduce the thinking processes of the human mind to being random chemical reflexes, then we have no legitimate reason to believe the claims of atheism because we would not be able to trust our own thoughts. Selfhood would be an empty illusion!

          Life without God is meaningless. If the universe came into existence by mere coincidence, and we just so happened to have evolved from a different species of primate forefathers over a period of several billion years, then it would follow that human life has no intrinsic value. The inevitable consequence of eliminating God from the equation of life would be that we possessed no more dignity than the soil, rocks, or other components which constitute the physical and chemical composition of this planet. The universe itself most certainly has no compassion for life. Time would simply progress as we wait for the natural, appointed termination of our physical existence. No afterlife means having no ultimate sense of purpose or fulfillment.

          “I believe that the facts of science offer overwhelming evidence in support of the Humanist thesis of the inseparable coexistence of body and personality. To begin with, biology has conclusively shown that man and all other forms of life were the result, not of a supernatural act of creation by God, but of an infinitely long process of evolution probably stretching over at least three billions years….”

           A Supreme Mind still could have created the universe by means of a giant cosmic explosion of expanding matter to accomplish the formation of animal species through evolutionary processes. Consequently, the "humanist thesis" does not really negate the possibility of supernatural creation. Further, the universe and the human body are so complex that countless factors remain unexplained or unproven. It is completely wrong for one to assert that supernatural intervention in creation has been ruled out. Even if scientists did manage to successfully develop a scientific model that functions without God, proof of being unnecessary is not the same as proof of nonexistence. The biblical worldview presents us with a universe that absolutely depends on God for its existence.

          “Humanism believes that Nature itself constitutes the sum total of reality…and that supernatural entities simply do not exist. This non reality of the supernatural means, on the human level, that men do not possess supernatural and immortal souls; and, on the level of the universe as a whole, that our cosmos does not possess a supernatural and eternal God.”

           Naturalism maintains that everything existing emerged from natural properties and causes to the exclusion of supernatural intervention. In other words, this logical framework operates on the premise that all things are physical and are thus dictated by the laws of physics and chemistry. However, we know that this position is false because things such as numbers, moral laws, and information are nonphysical entities. These things transcend the five senses which scientists use to make observations and draw inferences. The elementary concept of free will disproves naturalism because this philosophy assumes that scientific laws and states are literally in control of all things.

          “the scientific concept of evolution…effectively negates the old religious idea of a divine creation of the whole universe.”

           This assertion raises more questions than it does clarify issues. Can something come from nothing? Can meaningful and functional design arise from chaos? Can intelligence arise from non-intelligence? Can rationality arise from non-rationality? Can consciousness arise from non-consciousness?

          “Matter is self-existent, self-active, self-developing, self-enduring. It is auto-dynamic.”

          Is this not a circular argument (i.e. matter has power in of and itself because that is how it is)? How can matter be self-existent when it is comprised of finite particles? What infinite source of energy do atoms possess that enables matter able to act of itself without external causes? How can physical matter come from nothing or create itself? How could non-living matter become alive by itself? 

          ''A careful analysis of both the natural and the social sciences shows, in the first place, that we do not attain something that is to be called ‘absolute’ truth, but rather what John Dewey cautiously describes as ‘warranted assertibility''

          If there are no absolute truths, then a.) scientific laws are subjective, b.) no point in education because truth is subjective, c.) the concept of certainty is illusionary, d.) no such thing as crime because nobody can definitively declare an action to be evil, e.) no such thing as human rights, and f.) reality itself becomes an illusion. If there are no absolute truths, then there is no reason for us to believe any of the arguments made in favor of secular humanism. A society that functions consistently on a morally relativistic framework will be characterized by the basest forms of heathenism and barbarism. It would lose any right to call itself a civilization.

          “For Humanism no human acts are good or bad in or of themselves. Whether an act is good or bad is to be judged by the consequences for the individual and society.”

          Secular consequentialism is the ethical system which maintains that the morality of an action is dependent on its results. In other words, this worldview judges the morality of actions in accordance to their conclusions (not in the action itself). But this method of moral discernment is quite perplexing. What constitutes the authentic definition of good? Who gets to determine the meanings of good and evil? Good for who? What about bad personal motives that just so happened to produce positive consequences for other people? What about the fact that we cannot predict the outcomes of our actions before we act? From whence would morality come from in the first place?

          ''The Humanist refuses to accept any Ten Commandments or other ethical precepts as immutable and universal laws never to be challenged or questioned. He bows down to no alleged supreme moral authority either past or present…But we can say…some ends justify some means. In getting at the ethical significance of a means-end situation, it is always necessary to be specific and inquire,‘Does this particular end or set of ends justify this particular means or group of means?''

          It is unsurprising that atheists openly reject the notion of objective moral laws, since they are living in rebellion to the God who created them. The above quoted statements are symptomatic of a puffed-up heart. If individuals get to determine their own moral law codes, then what happens when they contradict each other or themselves? How would such an idea not render the building of civilization impossible?

Never Hesitate To Do That Which Is Good

"You cannot do a kindness too soon because you never know how soon it will be too late."

Ralph Waldo Emerson