Not So Polite Conversation – “Catholic of Honor” tries to refute a post of mine, hilarity to follow

This is a long slog, so fair warning. Not much here is that new when it comes to counter apologetics. I just was amusing myself in responding.

Always good to see a Catholic who has decided to respond to my posts. He didn’t bother reading anything else on my blog, including my introduction. So he thinks I’m called “club schadenfreude”. Really, dear? Tsk. I’m pretty sure I told him I was Vel, when I commented on the false claims on his blog, which of course he banned me from, rather than showing I was wrong. Alas, the self-proclaimed “Catholic of Honor” shows he isn’t so honorable, when he claims I wasn’t being honest or contributing to dialogue. He claims that showing that his claims, and other claims are false is “harassment”. But that is typical for most Christians. If he didn’t like to do ban people, as he claims, no one forced him. It’s always good to see a Catholic trying to blame others for their actions.

Anyway, let’s look at what this “honorable Catholic” has to say. You can also see it here. as a pdf housed here on my blog. He has preloaded his excuses here so he can pretend that no one can hold him accountable for his claims: “Why should you listen to me? I am not a priest, nor saint, nor theologian, nor angelic doctor. I am only a man with a desire to spread the gospel. A member of the laity wit a passion. A sinner trying to fight the good fight. A Catholic of Honor.” There is no reason to listen to him and his baseless opinions at all. But we can indeed counter them.

CoH (Christian of Honor) quotes a fellow Catholic, who makes the claim that a god named Moloch exists, and that abortion has something to do with it. Unfortunately, there is no evidence for Moloch, much the same that there is no evidence for CoH’s version of the Christian god. This fellow Christian, Kristor, who I’m sure some of you are familiar with, makes predictions that, surprise, never occur. “Moloch must be fed, by his slaves. Now that he’ll be denied the food of babies from so many “trigger” states, he’ll need to be fed in some other way. His vassals will try to figure out how to immolate some high profile victims, to sate his hunger and avert his wrath. I suspect they’ll offer up some from among their own company.”

Oh darn one more failed claim and a Christian who is sure other gods exist. How embarrassing! Then CoH says he agrees, but now it’s just a “metaphor “I admit this is somewhat dramatic and sensational—clearly not meant to be read by the Pro-Choice but rather to inspire Pro-Lifers. Still, I will not say he is wrong, provided we take “Moloch” in a somewhat metaphorical sense.” Surprise, Christians don’t agree, not even Catholics.

I wrote this to respond to poor Kristor: “No Moloch, dears, and no Christian god. I do love the lies of Christians, who have no problem with their god killing children at all. The hypocrisy is wonderful. And it’s always good to see an impotent imaginary god that can’t get rid of another imaginary god”

CoH doesn’t like this. “Lest there is any doubt, this is definably not how anyone should approach apologetics, whether Christian or atheist. Intellectual virtue consists of a character that promotes intellectual flourishing, critical thinking, and the pursuit of truth. Random and on-the-spot accusations of lying, coupled with random, impromptu, and impolite pieces of sarcasm is basically the opposite of that.”

CoH is upset that I point out how apologetics fail and says I shouldn’t show that they are wrong. He claims “intellectual virtue”, something he’s made up so he can whine about how dare anyone shows that his fellow Chrsitians lie, and says that bluntly, supported by evidence. Yep, one can point lies on the spot and ridicule lies on the spot too. Oh dear, I was “impolite”, aka the typical Chrsitian who has yet to realize that no one has to be polite when it comes to their harmful and baseless lies. The dear ol’ “Mother Church” hasn’t come to terms that they aren’t in power anymore.
Then, we have CoH upset that I pointed out that the only humans who are happy with human sacrifice are humans. I said “Literally, the only people left who are happy with human sacrifice are Christians. We see this in their myths (a babe born in a manger and Jephtha’s daughter for starters), in unfortunately common actions where Christians think their god will heal a child and let the child die, and now in their need to sacrifice women.”

He wrote “I wonder if she is using the term literally metaphorically. I honestly cannot tell, but if she is not, I greatly doubt that. At any rate, I do not see how she can excludes Muslim and Jews by her criteria—not to mention anyone who actually worships such demons.”

That he can’t tell simply is that he doesn’t want to admit that I am quite certainly using the term “literally” literally. Then he claims that somehow Jews and Muslims are happy with human sacrifice. They do indeed, if they accept that story about Jephtha’s daughter. I do like how CoH claims that Jews and Muslims worship demons, a lovely baseless and typically bigoted claim by a Christian. That’s quite a lovely “whataboutism” that ricocheted on CoH.

Well, let’s look at the next bit from CoH. “But I might as well respond to this actual argument. Remember, God gave life in the first place, but He never intended it to be permanent on Earth. It is our calling to be with Him in heaven. “

Hmmm, the bible never says this. We have this god wanting the humans it chose to be on the city of heaven on earth; only 144,000 virgin Jews go to heaven.

“It is easily in God’s rights to take His children when He wills, while it is not within the rights of men who do not have authority over life and death. When you look at it that way, this reasoning could be said to be quite logical, even if it is hard for us to see in this life. Besides, if we are just talking about children here, chances are many of them will go to heaven when otherwise, for all we know, perhaps they would not.”

This is the typical morality of Christians, might equals right. We see that CoH has no problem with human sacrifice when it comes to the story of Jephtha’s daughter. Then we have the baseless claim from a Christian and Catholic, making the claim that the children this god murders “go to heaven”. If this is an excuse, abortion would be a sacrament to Catholics, evidently guaranteeing that they automatically go to heaven. This is the excuse used by various people who have killed their children, murdered to “save” them from sin. This is from “Child murder by mothers: patterns and prevention” SUSAN HATTERS FRIEDMAN1 and PHILLIP J RESNICK1

“Resnick’s review of the world psychiatric literature on maternal filicide (11) found filicidal mothers to have frequent depression, psychosis, prior mental health treatment, and suicidal thoughts. Maternal filicide perpetrators have five major motives: a) in an altruistic filicide, a mother kills her child out of love; she believes death to be in the child’s best interest (for example, a suicidal mother may not wish to leave her motherless child to face an intolerable world; or a psychotic mother may believe that she is saving her child from a fate worse than death); b) in an acutely psychotic filicide, a psychotic or delirious mother kills her child without any comprehensible motive (for example, a mother may follow command hallucinations to kill); c) when fatal maltreatment filicide occurs, death is usually not the anticipated outcome; it results from cumulative child abuse, neglect, or Munchausen syndrome by proxy; d) in an unwanted child filicide, a mother thinks of her child as a hindrance; e) the most rare, spouse revenge filicide occurs when a mother kills her child specifically to emotionally harm that child’s father.”

We also have that “church fathers” say that unbaptized Children go to hell, not passing god, not collecting $200. “Let no one promise infants who have not been baptized a sort of middle place of happiness between damnation and Heaven, for this is what the Pelagian heresy promised them’ (The Soul and Its Origin, Patrologiae Latinae, Migne, 44:475)”

Funny how a Catholic just ignores what he wants. Then he is offended that I mentioned how the Catholic Church doesn’t treat stillborns like children. He claims I take it “out of context” but does not show how. The catholic church is indeed hypocritical if it claims that fetuses, embryos, and fertilized eggs are children and then says still borns aren’t. If fetuses, embryos, fertilized eggs are independently “alive” even if they can’t survive without the woman’s body without which they would immediately die, a stillborn fetus is just as “alive”. It is telling that CoH can only think of serial killers killing children. “As for the dead, we entrust them to the mercy of God and hope that they are saved.” Well, per Auggie above, there is no reason to trust this god at all.

Unsurprisingly, CoH tries to claim my points aren’t “entirely accurate. They are, and CoH does admit that Catholics don’t agree yet on more things. “I will say I imagine it is not done as much because few theologians think they are in Purgatory and they are probably either in Heaven or Limbo.” Aka we just make nonsense up.

Alas, per CoH’s own arguments, he and the RCC (something that poor CoH can’t evidently figure out) do need to start baptizing fertilized eggs. He doesn’t like that conclusion, and tries this excuse: “The point is that it seems quite difficult to me to baptize an embryo unless you expect a priest to have the doctor temporarily remove the baby from the uterus for a baptism, which seems very unsafe.”

Surely it would be fine with a god that demands “children” be baptized to not send them to hell. Right? Or does CoH admit that fertilized eggs, embryos and fetuses aren’t children at all? Seems he is.

Science doesn’t show that fetuses are “independent organisms” at all. Again, until we do have the science to have an artificial womb, this potential human being needs another.

I do appreciate that CoH admits that Catholicism and Protestants have different, and contradictory, versions of Christianity, and not one of them can show their nonsense true. “As for us reading the same Bible, this feels like grasping at straws—either that or not really understanding the root differences between Catholicism and Protestantism. It is true that it is troubling that all Protestants follow the exact same method of learning about God but then cannot agree on anything.” He, as usual, tries the baseless claim that only his version of Chrsitianity, and indeed Catholicism, is the only right one. Alas for him, every single Christian claims that they and they alone have “teaching authority”.

CoH kindly lists all of the Christians who don’t agree with him and like him, can’t show that he is even a real Christian, unable to do what the bible has JC promising. He tries to claim that only he has the right “understanding” and dismisses anyone who disagrees with his version. How not new or impressive. “I will simply knock off Sedevacantists and Beneplenists from the list since I think the whole thing results from a misunderstanding of Canon Law (no offense to anyone reading this who espouses such views—I deal with them elsewhere).” Aka, don’t hold me to account for making a baseless claim and calling you liars.”

“I would argue that Catholicism best reflects the Early Church, but whatever is the case, simply stating that “You all disagree with each other and therefore you must all be wrong” is simply unsound logic.”

So, another baseless claim, and attempting to deny that if no chrsitain can show that they have some “right” answer, there is no reason to doubt them all. At best, CoH could argue that there is a right answer, but since he can’t do what the bible promises, he admits his version, and the versions of every other Christians, is wrong.

CoH also mentions the term “bulverism” a term made up by the liar C.S. Lewis, a famous apologist. Bulverism is defined as “The method of Bulverism is to “assume that your opponent is wrong, and explain his error.” “ Alas, CoH accuses me of this but has no evidence I have done this. What I have done is research the claims of CoH and other Christians, no presupposition, and then have presented evidence that they are wrong. From CoH’s own claims, my point ““As always, the bible and its god is no more than a Rorschach test, showing what the human wants to pretend is true, nothing more.”” Is demonstrated as true since even CoH admits that Christians make up what they want, insisting that their personal interpretation is the only right one, contradicting their fellow Christians. They make up their god and their religion in their own image, show their internal desires and hates.

Now, if we do want to see someone perform “bulverism”, Christians are great examples, since each presupposes the other Christians are wrong, and then they try to show how. CoH is quite right here “It is a rhetorical fallacy that assumes a speaker’s argument is invalid or false and then explains why the speaker came to make that mistake or to be so silly (even if the opponent’s claim is actually right) by attacking the speaker or the speaker’s motive.” And he does it repeatedly in his attacks on other versions of Christianity. Here’s an example from CoH’s typing fingers “When Luther first proposed Sola Scriptura, the idea seemed simple enough, but doctrinal controversy seemed to be sprouting all around from its very roots.” You can see the rest here.

Happily, I didn’t try psychoanalysis, I only compared the bible to a method of psychoanalysis. What I have shown is that there are many contradictions in Chrsitainty, and CoH has helped in showing how he is sure that only his version is the right one, which literally (yes, dear I mean that literally, ROFL), contradictions other Christianities.

CoH tries the excuse that I can’t point out contradictions since humans aren’t “infallible gods”. I’m not even thinking that. But gee, poor CoH claims to have a infallible god, and it fails hilariously since it can’t make itself understood, evidently. If there is some truth, an omnipotent, and omniscient, and supposedly good, infallible god must, by definition, be able to make itself clear, and not have to have its followers blame themselves for being at fault.

“we could just be much more charitable than to go around accusing people of being liars.”

No need to be charitable to people who can be demonstrated as liars. This is again the Christian begging everyone to not show that their emperor has no clothes.

So what has CoH’s post taught us?

“So what does this teach us? First of all, be mindful of intellectual vices which do not promote charity in dialogue and apologetics.”

He has nothing to support his claims and demands “charity” when none is deserved.

“Second, when you find a two-thousand-year-old system of faith and think you can refute it by an alleged simple contradiction in a few paragraphs, keep in mind that you might have to do more research before you think you have refuted this organization.”

CoH still has nothing to support his claims, and tries to lie that I haven’t done research and have shown that his “system of faith” is no different than those versions of Christianity and other religions he attacks. If he is the one TrueChristain™, he knows, from his bible how he can show this to be true. Unsurprisingly, he can’t do what it promises.

“Generally, when millions of people hold to a viewpoint, especially one as historically intellectual as Catholicism, I think it is unrealistic to suppose one can refute the idea so easily—which is why I think it is, in fact, irrational, to go around accusing us of intentional deceit.

Oh dear, an appeal to popularity logical fallacy is all he has. There is nothing historically intellectual about Catholicism, it depends on the same demonstrably baseless claims as any other version of Christianity.

“Bonum Certamen Certemus “which means “We’re sure it’s a good fight.” (translation courtesy of google.) Unfortunately, he’s wrong. And if you are a Christian who likes to claim that Catholics aren’t Chrsitians, your version isn’t any better.

Kitten update next!

at least Catholics generally know not to promises prayers for me since they know they always fail.

most likely CoH will complain that I post this. Sorry, I’ll bring this up every time some Christian tries to insist that their god has better morals than human beings.


Not So Polite Dinner Conversation – A Christian prays for a miracle for me

So, last post was about Jon over at nonviolentchristians. He has now claimed the following:

ClubSchadenfreude said, “not up to us to disprove miracles. It is up to you to show that they do occur. Unsurprisingly, you can’t.”

I have experienced miracles. I know they are real.

One scientific survey conducted by Barna Research found that “67% of Americans believe miracles are possible, but among well educated medical doctors 75% believe miracles are possible. 55% of US physicians have seen results in their patients that they would consider miraculous.”

I think that even meets David Hume’s stringent requirements for considering miracles real.

I will say a prayer asking God to show you a miracle, even you can believe.”

hmm, no miracle yet. And this despite his god’s promise that all prayers from real Christians will be answered with what is asked for, no exceptions or excuses, and answered quickly. Now, what is Jon’s problem?

There’s also no quote from Barna as he cited. I’m waiting for him to either admit that or give a source.

Not So Polite Dinner Conversation – yet one more Christian makes false statements about atheists

Jon Kauffman, over on Nonviolent Christians, has made more false claims about atheists. This is nothing new for many Christians and they do violence to the truth. This is my response.

Atheists Fail to Defend Their Position.

Funny how atheists defend their positions often, including me. Now, why would you lie that we don’t, Jon? You may not like what we say, but to declare we don’t?

“I have challenged several atheists to give me good reasons for why I should not be a Christian. To this point they have failed.”

how and why have they supposedly failed? Please do explain.

“I have asked numerous atheists about the resurrection of Jesus. A very common answer I receive is that no evidence exists for the resurrection. I know from my own research that very good evidence exists for the resurrection of Jesus. I have never received a good factually based argument from an atheist as to why I should not believe in the resurrection of Jesus.”

So, let’s take this again. What do you consider as “very good evidence”, Jon? Let me know and I’ll show how it isn’t.

“Some atheists avoid any information that does not conform to their world view. Many archeologists claim that the exodus occurred about 1250 BC. Then they say that because evidence does not exist in Egypt at 1250 BC then the Exodus did not occur. I don’t know why they claim the exodus happened in 1250 B.C. In my limited study of archeology I have found no good evidence for holding the view that the exodus occurred in 1250 B.C.

However, the Bible says that the exodus occurred about 1450 BC and we do find evidence for the exodus in Egypt at that time. I was discussing facts about the Exodus with an atheist, I brought up a piece of evidence. The atheist asked if that evidence came from a Christian. I said yes, he said he would not take the evidence seriously because it came from a Christian. Was this atheist serious about searching for truth?”

Who are these archaeologists? Your problem is that most archaeologists don’t think the exodus never happened at all.

And the bible mentions no dates at all (of course, you can show me where it does if you want to make that claim). It also doesn’t mention who the pharaoh was. Christians themselves can’t agree on who they want to claim as the pharaoh of the supposed “exodus”. You also have that there is no evidence for the exodus at any time claimed by believers. not one trash pit, not one latrine, not one grave, and this is despite the bible gives the supposed route taken.

” I have asked atheists for any proven scientific theories that bring Christianity into question. The response has always been silence. They seem to worship science but cannot use it to support their positions. Curious.”

this is also interesting since science shows that resurrection after being three days dead can’t happen. It also shows that animals didn’t suddenly appear in their current forms, which shows that the two contradictory creation stories also fail. Then we have the magic flood that Christians themselves can’t agree on, and the sciences shows that couldn’t happen as described either since the laws of physics don’t work that way.

“I wonder if some atheists are atheist because of the evidence or because they hate Christianity. I have read blogs where an atheist will search for mistakes made by Christians or search for Christians who do not live by the teaching of Jesus. They write blog post after blog post tearing down these Christians. This in no way demonstrates Christianity is false. It would be much like pointing out the evils of Stalin and the Communist Soviet Union and claiming all atheists are evil and that Stalin disproves atheism”

yep, it would be rather silly to try to lie about atheists when you have no evidence to support that particular lie equating atheism with Stalinism.

Now, Jon, which version of Christianity do you want to claim that atheists supposedly hate? Christians hate each other’s versions so which can we know is the supposed “right” one? You all claim to be living per the “teachings of Jesus” but all of you contradict each other on what those teachings actually are, and you all have the same evidence for your claims: none.

Showing how Christians can’t agree is indeed evidence that Christianity is false since not one of you can show that there is some TrueChristianity(tm) that has this god’s approval. That not one Christian can show that their version is the “right” one and that not one Christain can do what Jesus promised seems to indicate you are all frauds.

now, the question is if you’ll allow this post to appear in your comments. No matter, it will be seen on my own blog.”

Currently my comment does seem to be appearing. I’ll be curious to see if I get any response to my questions asking for additional information.

What the Boss Likes – more kitten videos!

Here are more videos of the foster kittens. Against astreja’s advice, I have named them since I got tired referring to them as the “orange kitten”, “the other orange kitten”, “the brown tabby kitten and “the other brown tabby kitten”. So we have Ulysses, the orange kitten with the white socks (and my husband’s pick of the litter literally), Goose, the orange kitten without the white socks (and honorary flerken), Porthos the dark brown tabby kitten and Hobbes, the lighter brown tabby kitten.

Since these are up on Youtube and I entertain myself by ripping apart theist claims there, the poor frustrated theists have to attack the fact that I’m taking care of kittens since they have nothing else.

Not So Polite Dinner Conversation – nothing new, a Christian apologist fails

Many of my blog visitors will recognize the failed apologist SpaniardVIII.  He, in the typical apologist arrogance, offered to answer any questions about his version of Christianity.    I asked him some questions about bible verses to see what excuses he would offer, and I wasn’t disappointed, getting a great set of examples of how Christians respond when their bible is inconvenient in its contradictions and in its less than admirable god.

The first  question I asked was about the contradictory claims in Exodus 20 and Ezekiel 18 where this god is described as punishing descendants for the actions of their ancestors and where it says this god will never do that.    

Unfortunately for span, it doesn’t just “seem” like this god will punish descendants, it says that quite literally.  We also have that confirmed in the Christian claims of “original sin”.    These are the verses:

You shall not make for yourself an idol, whether in the form of anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, punishing children for the iniquity of parents, to the third and the fourth generation of those who reject me, but showing steadfast love to the thousandth generation[b] of those who love me and keep my commandments.”  Exodus 20 NRSV

Span uses the Berean Study Bible for his translation.  That is claimed to be “. An interlinear Bible to directly follow the Greek and Hebrew texts.2. A literal translation to take the reader to the core of the Greek and Hebrew meanings.3. A modern English translation, effective for public reading, memorization, and evangelism.4. An annotated translation to bring out the full meaning and intensity of the original texts.”  Funny how all bibles claim to be exactly this, with the exception of the good ol’ KJV since it is still in Elizabethan English. Christians still can’t agree on what version is the “right one”, and it seems that not a one of them can get their imaginary god’s stamp of approval. 

This is what the BSB has “ 4 You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in the heavens above, on the earth below, or in the waters beneath. 5 You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on their children to the third and fourth generations of those who hate Me, 6 but showing loving devotion to a thousand generations of those who love Me and keep My commandments. “

If we look at the underlined words, the father’s descendants are cursed since they are continuing to practice their father’s wickedness which in this case is idolatry. If a son imitates his father’s sins, he will be found guilty in God’s eyes. However, in Ezekiel 18, God makes it clear that if the son sees all of his father’s wickedness but decides not to do them but rather, obey the LORD, he will not pay for his father’s sins. God judges everyone’s personal decisions either to believe in God and follow His Word or to disobey Him and live in sin.

The LORD’s desire is for people to repent from their sins and change their ways and obey His Word.

Do I take any pleasure in the death of the wicked? declares the Lord GOD. Wouldn’t I prefer that he turn from his ways and live? -Exodus 18:23 BSB

His bible doesn’t say that the children of the parents who disobey are also disobeying at all.  This demonstrates either Span’s ignorance about how grammar works or that he is attempting to lie.  What the sentence says is that the children will be punished because of the actions of the parent, not their own actions.  If one writes this out without the clauses, it comes out like this “You shall not bow down to them or worship them.  I am a jealous God and I visit the iniquity of the fathers who hate me on the third and fourth generations of their children.   I show loving devotion to a thousand generations of those who love Me and keep My commandments.” 

there are actions by this god in these sentences.  This god “visits” (in this context meaning “to afflict with; to avenge (to exact satisfaction for (a wrong) by punishing the wrongdoer – merriam webster which uses this verse as an example)” the iniquities of the parents on the children for the actions of the parents.  There is no hate shown by these children toward this god.  This god also acts on those that love him, all of them.  

Unsurprisingly, span is also wrong about Ezekiel 18.  It mentions nothing about a son seeing the actions of his father.  “ 1The word of the Lord came to me: What do you mean by repeating this proverb concerning the land of Israel, ‘The parents have eaten sour grapes, and the children’s teeth are set on edge’? As I live, says the Lord God, this proverb shall no more be used by you in Israel. Know that all lives are mine; the life of the parent as well as the life of the child is mine: it is only the person who sins that shall die.” Ezekiel 18 NRSV

This goes on to mention a son who does bad things, and says that a father wouldn’t be held accountable, and that if a father does bad things, a son would not be held accountable. And again, it repeats “20 The person who sins shall die. A child shall not suffer for the iniquity of a parent, nor a parent suffer for the iniquity of a child; the righteousness of the righteous shall be his own, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be his own.” 

span tries to mention Ezekiel 18, where this god claims to be interested in people coming to it.  “23 Have I any pleasure in the death of the wicked, says the Lord God, and not rather that they should turn from their ways and live? 24 But when the righteous turn away from their righteousness and commit iniquity and do the same abominable things that the wicked do, shall they live? None of the righteous deeds that they have done shall be remembered; for the treachery of which they are guilty and the sin they have committed, they shall die.”

Now, consider this “David said to Nathan, ‘I have sinned against the Lord.’ Nathan said to David, ‘Now the Lord has put away your sin; you shall not die. 14 Nevertheless, because by this deed you have utterly scorned the Lord,[a] the child that is born to you shall die.’ 15 Then Nathan went to his house. The Lord struck the child that Uriah’s wife bore to David, and it became very ill. 16 David therefore pleaded with God for the child; David fasted, and went in and lay all night on the ground. 17 The elders of his house stood beside him, urging him to rise from the ground; but he would not, nor did he eat food with them. 18 On the seventh day the child died.” 2 Samuel 12

hmmm. Span still has a contradiction in his bible and we also get to see this god lie when it comes to David’s son.

The second response is even better.  

“The second question:

“If this god hates Satan, why does it show off to satan like a [the phrase was removed for being disrespectful] and allow a family to be murdered?”

God gives all of His creatures free will. For example, God has allowed you (clubschadenfreude) to mock and malign God without being judged immediately for your contempt. You and the rest of the atheists are very fortunate.”


the phrase removed was that this god shows off to satan like a besotted schoolgirl.   Poor god, just so impotent and fearful, it can’t take being described accurately.  My question here is referring to events in the book of Job.  It’s no surprise that span didn’t quote that here, since it shows he’s wrong again.  There is no mention of free will, and a complete disregard for free will when this god says that satan can do whatever he wants with these humans “ The Lord said to Satan,[g] ‘Very well, all that he has is in your power; only do not stretch out your hand against him!’” Poof goes their free will.  And alas, for span, this god doesn’t allow me to do anything at all.  This imaginary god can’t do anything, and all poor span has is an impotent threat that will never come true.  I’ll never be judged by his bogeyman at all.   

“The third question:

“If this god hates satan, why did it allow satan into the garden? or couldn’t it keep it out?”

God’s judgment on Satan and his fallen angels will take place at the end of the world when they will be thrown into the Lake of Fire with those who refuse to put their trust in Jesus Christ.

God allowed Satan to test Adam and Eve to see if they would choose to obey God or listen to Satan. It is no different for us today. We are given the choice to follow Jesus or to follow Satan through atheism, cults, and the occults.”

Span tries to claim that an omnipotent and omniscient being has to “test” people for some reason.  Being omniscient means you don’t have to test someone; you know already what will happen and what people will do.  This depowering of a god isn’t anything new for Christians to do.   They just don’t think their excuses through. 

“The fourth question:

“If this god hates satan, why did it need satan to have its blood sacrifice by torture work?”

I’m not sure what she is trying to say with this question. It doesn’t make any sense. I will try anyways.

I’m assuming she is referring to Jesus’ death on the cross. So what she is asking is, why did Jesus need Satan to put Him on the cross? Jesus didn’t need Satan to put Him on the cross. There is no such reference in Scripture even remotely to that effect. Judas Iscariot opened up the door to Satan by being a thief, see John 6:70-71, giving him access to his life. Satan hated Jesus and wanted to stop Him since Jesus was reclaiming the souls that Satan had captured to do his bidding. When he saw that Judas didn’t give his heart to Christ and was stealing from Him, Satan saw his opportunity and took it.

This is for the second part of her question. The reason Jesus had to die on the cross for the sins of the world was that sin brought about death for all mankind. The payment for our sins was for someone sinless, Jesus Christ, to die in our place and pay our debt in full. God had to deal with humanity’s sins first before He could forgive them. Once God punished sin, forgiveness can now be extended to all.”

Poor span, he can’t grasp what I’ve asked here.  If this god hates satan, why does it need satan’s action for its plan to come true?  In the gospel of Luke, there would be no blood sacrifice by torture of Jesus if there wasn’t a betrayal done by Satan.  No blood sacrifice, no salvation. So, yep, this god needs satan.  Judas didn’t open up anything at all.  That’s a common false claim by Christians who haven’t read their bibles, but believe the mangled version given to them by priests and pastors who don’t like when this god works with its archenemy.  This claim that somehow satan took over also shows that free will is again not in the bible.  If humans can be taken over, poof goes free will. As for why JC had to die, it was to make god happy, nothing more or less.  And there was no payment since there was no loss.   It’s also unsurprising that, again, span must depower his god.  By definition, a god doesn’t have to deal with anything, especially when it put the rules in place. 

Then we get to the most interesting response:

“If this god hates satan, why does it kill all non-christians and then free satan to corrupt the christians that are left?”

“This question is misleading as it is incorrect from the start, assuming that everyone will be a Christian at that time. The question is about the End Times, in the Book of Revelation when Jesus comes down to fight against the Antichrist and his army. The non-Christian she refers to is the Antichrist and his army who will come to fight against Jesus Christ and His saints. So, the non-Christians are Satan worshippers, who received the mark of the beast. After the Antichrist is defeated, Jesus throws him and the false prophet into the Lake of Fire, and Satan is chained up and thrown into the bottomless pit for the time that Jesus rules on earth. When Jesus wins the battle, He comes down and reigns for a thousand years with His saints, and true peace permeates through the world.

When the thousand years are over, Jesus lets Satan loose for a short time, and it becomes apparent in Revelation 20:7-9, that even though Jesus will be here on earth physically, people will still refuse to believe in Him. So not everybody will be a Christian. Those are the ones that Satan gathers up to go to war for the last time. Fire comes down from heaven and devours Satan’s army who came to destroy the people in Jerusalem. Satan is thrown into his eternal place which is the Lake of Fire. Everyone at that time that ever existed will be judged. Everyone in Hades will be brought back to face God’s judgment and will end up in the Lake of Fire which is the second death. The righteous will be judged for the things they did for Jesus while on earth. Those are the ones who will enter heaven.”

Here again, the bible shows that span is wrong and that’s why he doesn’t quote it any longer in this post.

17 Then I saw an angel standing in the sun, and with a loud voice he called to all the birds that fly in mid-heaven, ‘Come, gather for the great supper of God, 18 to eat the flesh of kings, the flesh of captains, the flesh of the mighty, the flesh of horses and their riders—flesh of all, both free and slave, both small and great.’ 19 Then I saw the beast and the kings of the earth with their armies gathered to make war against the rider on the horse and against his army. 20 And the beast was captured, and with it the false prophet who had performed in its presence the signs by which he deceived those who had received the mark of the beast and those who worshipped its image. These two were thrown alive into the lake of fire that burns with sulphur. 21 And the rest were killed by the sword of the rider on the horse, the sword that came from his mouth; and all the birds were gorged with their flesh.”

Span chooses to try to ignore what the verse actually says, “the flesh of all” and “the rest were killed”.  So everyone is dead except Christians, per the bible itself.     

then we have “Then I saw an angel coming down from heaven, holding in his hand the key to the bottomless pit and a great chain. He seized the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the Devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years, and threw him into the pit, and locked and sealed it over him, so that he would deceive the nations no more, until the thousand years were ended. After that he must be let out for a little while.”

So, we have the nations of Christians kept safe from satan so “true peace” will reign.  If there are non-christians, this couldn’t happen per the lies of Christians like span who want to claim we are all just such horrible people.   There is nothing in Revelation 20:7-9 that there are still anyone other than Christians left.  “When the thousand years are ended, Satan will be released from his prison and will come out to deceive the nations at the four corners of the earth, Gog and Magog, in order to gather them for battle; they are as numerous as the sands of the sea. They marched up over the breadth of the earth and surrounded the camp of the saints and the beloved city. And fire came down from heaven[b] and consumed them. 10 And the devil who had deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and sulphur, where the beast and the false prophet were, and they will be tormented day and night for ever and ever.”

what we have is that satan is freed to corrupt the Christians who are the only ones left, the ones that are now deceived.  If this weren’t the case, this would mean that Jesus failed to conquer the beast, the false prophet and those who worshiped them in Chapter 19.  Hmm, how does a perfect being fail?

Span also gets it wrong that people will be in heaven.   Alas, only a few humans get to go there, and Christians don’t agree on just how one figures that bit of nonsense out.   the rest get the tacky city of heaven on earth where we see a god obsessed with worldly wealth. 

Not So Polite Dinner Conversation – an update on those Christians who want a new waste of money

I found out that some Christians, rather than helping women and children, and being all “pro-life” are exactly the opposite, wanting to build yet more worthless buildings to their greed and ignorance. I signed up on their mailing list to see what these idiots are up to. You can see how some Christians reveal just what they stand for here.

This is what I got recently. I do like that right off, poor ol’ God is left out. How pagan!

“Dear Friend of Jesus and Mary:

My heartfelt thanks to all of you who have reached out to me regarding your prayerful interest in the proposed shrine to the most holy Mother of God in thanksgiving for the overturning of Roe v. Wade.  Since my appearance on Matt Fradd’s Pints with Aquinas a couple of weeks ago, the outpouring of support for this project is beyond humbling.  Please know that your support, especially your prayers, are a crucial part of our discernment as we explore the possibilities of carrying out this noble undertaking.   God’s will be done. 

I wanted to simply send you an update to where things stand with this project as we take the first moves forward with this call ‘one step at a time’.  In the past couple of weeks I have:

  • Assembled a dedicated, visionary team who will assist me in promoting this cause and God-willing, making it a reality.
  • Made contacts with two very talented and faith-filled architects who have generously offered their abilities to produce an initial, proposed model for the building.  This will be crucially necessary at this initial, exploratory phase of the project.
  • Sought out a prospective site for the construction of the shrine in the idyllic and rolling hills of Southwest Pennsylvania (in the Pittsburgh metropolitan area).  
  • Taking the steps to formulate a 501c3 organization for this ongoing project.

Glory to God! The pieces are coming together!  I want to sincerely thank you again for your interest and prayerful support of this undertaking.   You will be hearing from me soon as we traverse the path on which Our LORD and Our Lady continue to lead us.   Continue to keep this project in your prayers!

Yours in Christ,

Fr. Jason Charron

PS — Please see the attached file with this email — a photo of the Majestic St. Michael’s ‘Golden-Domed’ Monastery in Kyiv, Ukraine — our architectural inspiration for this project.

I do live in PA, so I find it hilarious that they think they can build such complete crap here, considering how many catholic parishes have died out in the very region they want to pollute witih their golden lies. I also have to wonder about Catholics, who have long been hating the Orthodox churches using such a classic Orthodox design. They could alway refurbish one of the abandoned ones in Pittburgh or the surrounding area or reconsecrate one. Of cousre, being selfish Christians, they must have a “new” one.

https://architecturalafterlife.com/2019/03/our-lady-help/

https://newsinteractive.post-gazette.com/silentsanctuaries/

https://triblive.com/local/valley-news-dispatch/work-to-refinish-new-kensington-churchs-onion-dome-continues/