larger view larger view

I've always been intriqued by  the battle between good and evil. When I was younger, the utilitarianism of collectivism appealed to me.  Yet I instinctively knew that Communism had much evil in it, and I wanted to know what made Communism tick. It seemed so seductive for so many brilliant men and women, such as Vladimir Lenin and Leon Trotsky. Surely, as brilliant as they were, they should have seen through the evils in the Communist system- such as denial of personal freedoms, particularly religious freedom and freedom of expression.

I'm still curious about the great war between the forces of good and evil. and I'd like to put forth some ideas here for discussion. If anyone would like to comment or discuss, feel free to bring up your questions.

Why is there evil in the world, and why do bad things happen to supposedly good people? 

In Peter Kreeft's book, Handbook of Christian Apologetics, he covers these points in a very credible way, IMO.The following points are taken from this book.

First, evil is not a being, thing, or entity. Things are not evil in themselves. For instance, a sword is not evil. Even the stroke of a sword that chops off your head is not evil in itself- in fact, unless it's a "good stroke" it will not chop your head off.

Where is the evil? It is in the will, the choice, the intent, the movement of the soul, which puts a wrong order into the physical world of things and acts: the order between the sword and an innocent's neck rather than a murderer's neck or an innocent's bonds.

Even the devil was good in his being. He is a good thing gone bad- in fact, a good thing gone very bad. If he had not had the greatest ontological goodness (goodness in his being) of a powerful mind and will, he could never have become as morally corrupt as he is. "Lillies that fester smell far worse than weeds." To be morally bad you must first be ontologically good.

St. Augustine defines evil as disordered love, disordered will. It is a wrong relationship, a noncomformity between our will and God's will. God did not make evil, we did.  That is the obvious point of Genesis 1 and 3, the stories of God's good creation and humanity's evil fall.

The origin of sin is human free will. Because of the sin of Adam and Eve, our souls were alienated from God, and thus our bodies as well. Because of the original sin, spiritual death (sin) and physical death and suffering go together because our souls and bodies go together.

To the question of why bad things happen to good people, Socrates replies that they never do!  Christianity disagrees.  Its answer is that there are among us no "good people," that is, innocent people. We are involved in a physical world with our evil, which is like a stone tossed into the pond. The two great mysteries of solidarity, orginal sin (solidarity in sin) and vicarious atonement, (solidarity in salvation) mean that even the "innocents" among us, our small children, are involved in this double drama. (Kreeft, pp. 122-136)

If God is all-loving and all-powerful, then it would be a contradiction to say that God created evil.  I think Kreeft's explanation of evil in the world answers many questions that we can have answered this side of eternity. Certainly, God allows evil, but that is far different from creating it. 

larger view

Obama has very many charismatic qualities- he's a good speaker, he has a rich, pleasant voice, and he's quite cheerful. Some also admire him for his position on the war, the economy, and social issues. 

I have to admit that he's seems like quite a likable guy. But some things about him bother me, such as the entire saga with his pastor. How can someone attend a church for 20 years and not WANT to hear the message the man is speaking, then turn around and repudiate parts of the pastor's message?

Sounds like a lack of judgment to me.

Another issue that I disagree with is Obama's abortion record. As a senator in 2002 in Illinois, he was instrumental in defeating a bill which was designed to give care to children who survive late term abortions  The bill was in large part spearheaded by a registered nurse who had seen baby after baby left to die a pitiful, inhumane death.

I think Obama's record should be dealt with. ALL of his record. When confronted with the facts, I believe that Obama supporters should not blow a gasket, but respond calmly as possible with FURTHER facts, not personal attacks.

According to an essay in Human Events: "Jill Stanek, a registered delivery-ward nurse who was the prime mover behind the legislation after she witnessed aborted babies’ being born alive and left to die, testified twice before Obama in support of the Induced Infant Liability Act bills. She also testified before the U.S. Congress in support of the Born Alive Infant Protection Act.

Stanek told me her testimony “did not faze” Obama.

In the second hearing, Stanek said, “I brought pictures in and presented them to the committee of very premature babies from my neonatal resuscitation book from the American Pediatric Association, trying to show them unwanted babies were being cast aside. Babies the same age were being treated if they were wanted!”

“And those pictures didn’t faze him [Obama] at all,” she said."

http://www.humanevents.com/...

It is my opinion that this treatment of children gasping for life, like Obama's debacle with his pastor, shows a character flaw to say the least!

 I do not want a man like Obama who can leave these children in closets to die as my president. I also think ALL the information to be given about candidates.

Why some who seem to be Obama supporters can not deal with an issue is beyond me.

I welcome discussion on this issue. I am not for censorship, intolerance of people's views, personal attacks, or generally totalitarian methods of blogging.

larger view

Militant Islam and ol' fashioned Lenin-style Communism appear to have little in common on the surface, but they both embrace an extremism which is dangerous to the common good of society.

Though they differ so much, they embrace a radical extremism- Militant Islam embraces faith without reason. I proffer that it is not reasonable to strap a bomb to oneself and kill innocent women, men, and children, as well as yourself. Sure, others would say that it's within the bounds of reason. But that's not demonstrated by the fruits of that action.

The fruits of the extremism of this type of faith without reason are fear, hate, death, and more death. Mankind cannot flourish with this type of society. It's not reasonable to live in fear and with hatred that kills.

Other examples also come to mind of those who embrace faith without reason: Jim Jones and his followers in South American who committed a mass suicide, giving poisoned kool-aid to the children; the Heaven's Gate colony who also killed themselves, thinking they would be taken up into heaven in a space ship several years ago

On the otherhand, atheistic communism demonstrates what can happen when mankind tries to radically divorce itself from faith. Suddenly, God is not the giver of rights, but the state is. When the state gives human rights, then the state can also take them away at a whim.

Enter Stalin and his totalitarian practices of sending dissenters, religious people of all persuasions, and anyone else he didn't like to be purged from society. To him and his communist leaders, it was reasonable to get rid of those who disagree with the communist policies. Never mind that they are humans and have an inate dignity. (Can one detect dignity with reason alone?)

These people were either shot, hung, or sent to work themselves to death in labor camps. All told, one historian put the death toll of this extreme form of "reason" at 43 million.

Without faith, hope, or love, the people who died at the hands of the communists were little more than property. Less than Communist Party apparatchiks, but more than cattle. So much for the value of life when human reason alone is at play.

Other examples of radical uses of reason without the tempering of faith, in my opinion, are partial birth abortion, creating human chimeras (human embryos with animal DNA), and the genocide of the Nazis.

This is not my idea, but one theme of Pope Benedict XVI's- that faith without reason is dangerous, and reason without faith is equally dangerous. It is one that he is mentioning on this historic trip to the U.S.

This is quite an interesting topic, and comments or thoughtful discussion are welcome as well as a further exploration of this theme.

larger view

As a member of the JPII generation, I have to express my excitement that Pope Benedict XVI is visiting America. 

 What is the JPII generation? We're the generation of Catholics that grew up primarily under John Paul the Great, who love the Church and support its teachings. From the influence of John Paul II and his World Youth Days, an entire generation of Catholics have a fresh perspective on what it means to be Catholic in today's world. 

The theme for Benedict's trip is "Christ Our Hope" and Benedict is a voice for hope and for peace for America's 65 million Catholics, Catholics throughout the world, for all people of good will.

The Pope's reason for coming to America to begin with is his address to the United Nations on April 18. He will also be talking to the nation's top Catholic university leaders, meeting with the leaders of other religions, including a Passover visit to a synagogue, and having Masses at Yankee Stadium and other venues.

Why do I admire Benedict so much? He's truly a man of God. When a Catholic Archbishop was killed recently in Mosul, Iraq, Benedict called for prayers and peace for all in the region.  Also, I've read some of his writings, and I appreciate his keen insight on matters of the world, such as his statement that "a dictatorship of relativism" is emerging in secular society, and this must be confronted with the reality that there is objective truth- that we can know the difference between right and wrong.

I think his election as pope was providential for Catholics, indeed for the world.

Pope Benedict, welcome to America.

larger view

The Washington Post reported on January 21 that pro-life points-of-view are gaining broad support on college campuses in the last few years. In an article entitled "New Generation of Activists is Assembling Across College Campuses," the Post profiled the pro-life movement's progress in winning over hearts and minds on college campuses.

The newspaper said there are now Students for Life chapters at more than 400 campuses. According to the Post, "a new generation of activists is taking up the cause with conviction and sophistication."  (as reported in the NCR of Feb. 4, 2008)

This is heartening news, especially since at least one quarter of the college-age generation has been killed by abortion.

A European study published in the fall issue of The Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons states that abortion is the "best predictor" of breast cancer, and calls the current widespread incidence of breast cancer "epidemic," stated the National Catholic Register of 11/18/07. 

The study is based on data collected in England, Wales, Scotland, Ireland, Sweden, the Czech Republic, Finland, and Denmark.  The study made special note of the fact that such detailed, reliable data is not available in the U.S., asserting that "official abortion statistics in the United States and France are known to understate the numbers of legal induced abortions."  (my emphasis)

The forecast for the increase in breast cancer in the eight countries studied are considerable. In England and Wales, for example, instances of breast cancer are expected to increase from 39,229 reported in 2004 to more than 65,000 in 2025, and increase of more than 66%. (NCR 11/18/07)

This post is a response to another poster who is interested in dialoguing about the abortion-breast cancer link.  I am quite interested in these phenomena as well, and I state up front that I am totally against abortion.

I realize that the National Cancer Institute in America has stated that abortion causes no increased risk for abortion.   I believe that studies done as the one above and other recent ones which show an increase in breast cancer (40%) in women in China since implementing the one-child policy, relying heavily on abortion, show the opposite. Also, Ireland, and Poland, which restrict abortions greatly compared to the U.S., have fewer cases of breast cancer. I am prepared to discuss these studies in some detail.

Why does an abortion leave a woman more at risk for breast cancer?  At puberty, when estrogen levels rise, the breast forms Type 2 lobules. It is only through the hormonal environment and length of a full term (or to at least 32 weeks) pregnancy that there is full maturation of Type 3 and 4 lobules in the breast. This maturation protects a woman and lowers her risk of breast cancer.

This is why women who undergo full term pregnancies have lower risk of breast cancer and why women who remain childless have higher risk of breast cancer. Women who give birth after age 30 are also at increased risk of breast cancer as their immature Type 1 and 2 lobules are exposed to estrogen for the many years between the time of their first menstruation until their first full term pregnancy. Abortion in women under 18 and over 30 years old carries the greatest risk: these women have the highest percentage of Type 1 lobules in their breasts.

It is the interplay of these two principles, estrogen exposure and breast lobule maturation, which accounts for the fact that abortion can lead to breast cancer. Within a few days of conception, a woman's estrogen level rises. By the end of the first trimester, estrogen levels have increased by 2000%. The estrogen stimulation that causes the multiplication of Type 1 and 2 lobules, results in sore and tender breasts early on in pregnancy. It is only after 32 weeks that a woman's breasts stop growing larger and mature into Type 3 and 4 lobules in preparation for breast-feeding.

If abortion ends a woman's pregnancy before full maturation of her breasts, she is left with an increased number of the immature Type 1 and 2 lobules. She now has a greater number of the breast lobules where cancers can arise. This causes her to be at greater risk for breast cancer. It is through this same biologic mechanism that any premature birth before 32 weeks more than doubles breast cancer risk.

Induced abortion thus increases breast cancer risk by two mechanisms. First, abortion leaves the breast with increased numbers of Type 1 and Type 2 lobules, those lobules in which cancer cells are formed, which are then exposed to more estrogen through menstrual cycles. These lobules would otherwise have been protected from cancer by maturation to Type 3 and 4 lobules, if pregnancy had gone to term. Second, the breast is exposed to high levels of estrogen during pregnancy, which can induce cancer cells to form. 6
http://www.bcpinstitute.org...

I do agree that this is a highly politicized issue. People on both sides of the abortion issue do not want to give any ground. But in my opinion, a woman’s health is more important than abortion politics.  According to the Alan Guttmacher Institute at www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/3711005.pdf,  86% of abortions done in America in 2004 were for social reasons, such as starting a new job, or being a college student- not for the life of the mother.

 I think women should be informed of the risks of abortion and breast cancer, especially when breast cancer runs in the family.

If anyone is interested in discussing this issue, I would be pleased to do so.
 

larger view

How great that the hometown, area paper chooses to celebrate the season with references to two major world religions, Christianity and Judaism. (Kwanza is coming up on Dec. 26, so stay tuned. I remember past issues of the VA having Kwanza information.)

Recently the Advocate had a front-page article on a local Jewish family, highlighting their traditional Hannukah. The story was incredibly informative and uplifting.

Also, the Advocate liberally uses the word "Christmas" throughout each day's paper. They are sponsoring a "12 Days of Christmas" game-piece giveaway, and today was the last day to submit photos for "Christmas 2007." The ad says that you can share greetings and photos of baby's first Christmas, kids with Santa, and other "messages of good cheer."  Fantastico!

Finally, the Advocate is sponsoring a holiday essay contest entitled, "The True Meaning of Christmas," for which two of my sons are busy brainstorming. Thanks VA. They need some extra brain-work this time of year!

Anyway, normally people don't say "thanks" for this type of thing, but I do realize that this is not happening with every "hometown" paper in Texas, and surely not in the U.S.

So, thank you Victoria Advocate. You are adding to the holydays.

larger view

The Daily Mail, an English newspaper and on-line version as well, recently reported that it's quite common in the U.K. to publically declare that babies are NOT environmentally friendly, and in the name of saving the planet, one is doing the world a favor by aborting conceived children.

This makes no logical sense. Just what are we saving the planet for, if not for our children? Is the earth just to be looked at and admired, but not stepped upon- kind of like a formal dining room that some people have but don't dare use?

Here's a snippet from the article that I read which made me aware of this sad situation:

Meet the women who won't have babies - because they're not eco friendly

By NATASHA COURTENAY-SMITH and MORAG TURNER - More by this author » Last updated at 22:05pm on 21st November 2007

"Had Toni Vernelli gone ahead with her pregnancy ten years ago, she would know at first hand what it is like to cradle her own baby, to have a pair of innocent eyes gazing up at her with unconditional love, to feel a little hand slipping into hers - and a voice calling her Mummy.

But the very thought makes her shudder with horror.

Because when Toni terminated her pregnancy, she did so in the firm belief she was helping to save the planet.

Incredibly, so determined was she that the terrible "mistake" of pregnancy should never happen again, that she begged the doctor who performed the abortion to sterilise her at the same time.

He refused, but Toni - who works for an environmental charity - "relentlessly hunted down a doctor who would perform the irreversible surgery.

Finally, eight years ago, Toni got her way.

At the age of 27 this young woman at the height of her reproductive years was sterilised to "protect the planet".

Incredibly, instead of mourning the loss of a family that never was, her boyfriend (now husband) presented her with a congratulations card.

While some might think it strange to celebrate the reversal of nature and denial of motherhood, Toni relishes her decision with an almost religious zeal.

"Having children is selfish. It's all about maintaining your genetic line at the expense of the planet," says Toni, 35.

"Every person who is born uses more food, more water, more land, more fossil fuels, more trees and produces more rubbish, more pollution, more greenhouse gases, and adds to the problem of over-population."

While most parents view their children as the ultimate miracle of nature, Toni seems to see them as a sinister threat to the future."

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/...

This is amazing to me. This woman and others like are actually sacrificing their children for the benefit of the Earth. It sounds like something from the Old Testament pagan sacrifices where children were offered up to appease the nature gods.