Gomorrah No-More-Ah

for we are about to destroy this place, because the outcry against its people has become great before the Lord, and the Lord has sent us to destroy it. (Genesis 19:13)

I often wonder just how bad the people in Sodom were to incur the wrath of God? Then I think of modern times and wonder how far we are from suffering a similar fate?

An Argument For Free Will

We believe that God created the world according to His wisdom. It is not the product of any necessity whatsoever, nor of blind fate or chance. We believe that it proceeds from God's free will; He wanted to make His creatures share in His being, wisdom, and goodness: "For You created all things, and by Your will they existed and were created" (Rev 4:11). Therefore the Psalmist proclaims: "O Lord, how manifold are Your works! In wisdom You have made them all" (Psalms 104:24); and "The Lord is good to all, and his compassion is over all that He has made" (Psalms 145:9). (CCC 295)

God created the world of His own free will -- not out of necessity, or by blind will or chance. God was not forced to create this world and us men. He freely chose to do so. God has free will.

"Okay. So?" you say. Furthermore, God created man in His own image. Logic would suggest that if A contains B and C is like A, then C also contains B. By that reasoning, God has given man free will so that we also may know God, love God and serve God -- not by blind will or chance -- but because we choose to. After all, my wife's love for me would not me nearly as important to me were she forced to love me. It is only because she loves is out of her own free will (I think!) that I cherish it so greatly. Would God not think similarly?

This suggests that while proponents point out that the term "free will" is not mentioned in the Bible, it (like "Trinity") is implied by logic.

Now the rebuttal will be that predestination is likewise supported by Scripture citing examples such as Pharaoh's hardened heart (Exodus 7-11). The Church teaches in this instance that Pharaoh freely chose his sins and that God, ironically out of love and justice, allowed Pharaoh's heart to be hardened as a natural byproduct of his sins. In this scenario, it is plausible that one could state that God, who exists outside of our time line, could foresee Pharaoh's choice to turn his back on God and thus harden his own heart. But the hardening came as a result of the choices Pharaoh made out of free will; not because he was predestined to do so.

Origin of Life Worth the Wait

The question about the origins of the world and of man has been the object of many scientific studies which have splendidly enriched our knowledge of the age and dimensions of the cosmos, the development of life-forms and the appearance of man. These discoveries invite us to even greater admiration for the greatness of the Creator, prompting us to give Him thanks for all His works and for the understanding and wisdom he gives to scholars and researchers. With Solomon they can say: "It is He who gave me unerring knowledge of what exists, to know the structure of the world and the activity of the elements ... for Wisdom, the fashioner of all things, taught me." (CCC 283)

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" (Gen 1:1). The first verse in Scripture is the whole of what we as Catholics must believe. As long as we recognize that God was the beginning and the end of all things (and that man alone has an eternal soul), the details in between those bookends is left up to ourselves.

To believe in anything contrary to pure Creationism flies in the face of many Christian evangelicals. But I do not believe (nor does the Catholic Church require me to) that the early chapters of Genesis were ever intended to be taken literally. Instead, I think it is much more likely that the Bible's explanation for the origins of the universe were being explained to man at a time when their minds could not possibly have grasped the truths we now take for granted today. Their scientists (or "magi" on this day after the Feast of the Epiphany) could not have had the technical aptitude to understand the difference between a star, a planet or some other heavenly body (and apparently we still can't today) so the origins would have to have been explained in such a way as they could make sense of it.

My personal belief is that of intelligent design, in which evolution may have played a part in the scientific sense, but that God guided the process of cosmic jelly to human being. To deny plausible scientific evidence that certain creatures evolved from other creatures is akin to claiming that the universe is not heliocentric despite concrete proof of modern science.

I was surprised to learn that it was initially the Protestants, not the Catholics, who were opposed to the belief that the sun was the center of our galaxy. Both groups however based their ignorance on sacred Scripture, citing that to believe in other than a geocentric universe was to deny the literal interpretation of the Bible, most notably that the "earth is firm in its foundation and can not be moved" (Psalms 93:1, Psalms 96:10, 1 Chronicles 16:30). The Church did denounce Galileo of heresy for promoting Copernicus' findings, and did not admit to her error officially until 1757 due to findings by Isaac Newton.

I, for one, can appreciate the Church's stance on taking time to accept new information quickly. The same Church that took almost 200 years to recognize the sun as center of our galaxy, also applies that same slow, methodical approach to her recognition of saints and her acceptance of apparitions, which I (admittedly) am skeptical of. As a wise ent, Treebeard, once said in the Lord of the Rings, "It takes a long time to say anything ..., and we never say anything unless it is worth taking a long time to say."

I'd rather take a long time to ensure something is correct before I accept it than to readily accept every claim I hear as truth only to find out later that I had been deceived. Thank God for a slow and thorough universal Church that does not give in so easily to the changes of a liberal society!

Random Thoughts - I

Thence he removed to the mountain on the east of Bethel, and pitched his tent, with Bethel on the west and Ai on the east; and there he built an altar and called on the name of the Lord. (Gen 12:8)

According to wikipedia, Bethel is north of Jerusalem and Bethlehem is south of Jerusalem. I thought we had learned in Bible Study that it was the same city which I found interesting since it would suggest that Jesus' Jewish ancestry, going all the way back to Abraham, all revolved around the same exact spot. Either way, the Old Testament makes one pause to consider the spans of generations it covers, especially for Americans, whose country is just over 200 years old.

But the Lord afflicted Pharaoh and his house with great plagues because of Sar'ai, Abram's wife. (Gen 12:17)

It's no wonder Judaism was never adopted in Egypt! The house of Pharaoh was inflicted not once, but twice by the God of the Jews! Makes one wonder why Pharaoh in Moses' time was so unbelieving after the first of God's plagues. Just further proof that history repeats itself yet man never seems to take notice...

With Great Power Comes Great Responsibility

So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate; and she also gave some to her husband and he ate. (Genesis 3:6)

The last words of Peter Parker's uncle Ben before he dies make up the title of this entry. I don't think we need to be able to shoot webs from our wrists for that statement to apply to ourselves.


I can remember at one time believing (and making jokes about) the fact that woman was responsible for the fall of man! After all, she was the one that ate from the tree first, and then brought a piece to share with her husband who would have trusted her, as his wife, not to lead him into danger.

Only later did a wise person point out that had Adam been vigilant in his role as protector of his wife, perhaps the serpent might never have been able to tempt her. A tough pill to swallow for all of us husbands!

I also read a recent thread on Phatmass' forums questioning a hypothetical scenario in which the woman ate of the tree, but the man refused. Would we now be an all male society? Would God have taken another rib and perfected the woman? Would Eve have been kicked out of the garden without alimony thus making divorce acceptable in God's eyes?

Amidst these humorous responses, the idea was brought forth that if man and woman become one flesh in marriage, do they share in their sins? As mentioned above, Adam was at fault even before taking a bite of the fruit by not being a protector to his wife. If my wife sins because I as her husband was not their to help her in her holiness, am I also guilty for my lack of aid?

Feminists don't realize what they are giving up by trivializing the role of the man. Then again are we as men not responsible for giving them a reason to downplay our role in society? Perhaps if we were the providers and protectors that we were created to be, rather than the selfish, immature boys that we tend to be, women would not have the notion to downplay our necessity.

I think it's time men took Uncle Ben's last words as their personal mantra, and learn from the mistakes our forefathers made. Might I suggest all men consider becoming an e5 man, and put charity toward women in your lives higher on your priority list? Looking in the mirror, I realize this will require large quantities of discipline and prayer. Will you join me?

If Wisdom Comes With Age, Adam Was A Wise Guy!

Thus all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years; and he died. (Gen 5:5)

A few years ago, I was fortunate enough to be a part of a men's Bible Study group. At the time, one of the gentleman asked why we separated the men and women for this study. Aside from just personal choice, we pointed out that men tend to want explanations on the literal sense of the Bible while women tend to accept the message without sweating the details. The lifetimes of the early humans is a perfect example.

The question came up early in Genesis regarding the ages of the patriarchs of our faith. We naturally looked for any official Church teaching and finding none, began to put forth reasons this might be. Some leaned on the fact that the story of Creation was not meant to be take quite so literally, and that ages were merely symbolic of the importance of each person. Others suggested that in those years, time was not measured in the same sense that we think of it -- the Roman calendar and the cuckoo clock were yet to be discovered Still others reasoned that God ordered long life spans in order to allow time for the people to be fruitful enough to populate the world!

I like to think that it stems from the fact that our original parents ate from the Tree of Life while in Eden. The fruit from that tree would have gained them eternal life with the Father. When they were tossed out on their heels for their sin, the effects of that fruit did not immediately subside. Therefore we see throughout Genesis that the ages of our earliest ancestors were great in number, but generally dropped off as the amount of time since the fall of man increased.

Note that this is not official Church teaching. They do not speculate on age just as they do not specify whether a Catholic in good standing must believe in Creation or Evolution or some combination of the two. She only requires that "by faith we understand that the universe was ordered by the Word of God, so that what is visible came into being through the invisible" (Hebrews 11:3). Further more, the Church recognizes that the early chapters of Genesis "remain the principal source for catechesis on the mysteries of the 'beginning': creation, fall, and promise of salvation" (CCC 289).

But alas, the debate between Creation and Evolution is best left for another entry.

Has the Witness Committed Perjury?

The Trinity is One. We do not confess three Gods, but one God in three persons, the "consubstantial Trinity." The divine persons do not share the one divinity among themselves, but each of them is God whole and entire: "The Father is that which the Son is, the Son that which the Father is, the Father and the Son that which the Holy Spirit is, i.e., by nature one God." In the words of the fourth Lateran Council (1215): "Each of the persons is that supreme reality, viz., the divine substance, essence, or nature. (CCC 253)Ironically, I was approached by two Jehovah's Witnesses yesterday just as I was returning from the Mass for the feast day of Mary, Mother of God. I admit I had a smug face as they approached, with my decidedly Catholic bible held conspicuously in my left hand. How the pair must have thought they were coming to do battle with Satan the moment they inquired where I had come from only to find I had been "worshiping Mary" (their belief; not mine).

Contrary to how my wife probably thought I would respond, as she dashed the boys into the house, I think I spoke with charity. I have learned, in part as a defender, that attacking another's beliefs does not work to convert them. Instead, I merely tried to find common ground and suggest issues that made them question their own beliefs.

We discussed faith and works as well as the concept of suffering. I admitted that their idea of evangelization had its merits, and we spoke about how a message of joy and peace would always attract followers quicker than a message of abstinence, obedience and redemptive suffering. We also touched on the fact that Truth cannot contradict Truth to which we agreed that it was likely that one faith (I didn't SAY it was mine) had it right and all others were wrong in areas where they disagreed. Unfortunately, there was never an opportunity to charitably discuss the flaws in their theology. Among many is their non-belief in the Trinity. How can one even consider themselves Christian if they do not believe that Jesus Himself is God?

"Jesus clearly was a man, but he was unlike other men in that previously he had been a spirit person, known in heaven as the Word." This is the closest their website ever comes to suggesting Jesus was not just another prophet to Christians. "Note that prayer is directed through Jesus, not to him. Prayer is offered in Jesus' name because his shed blood opened the way of approach to God." This footnote to an article on angels would suggest that Jehovah's do not believe in the triune nature of God with Jesus as the Son. "'Michael the archangel' is Jesus Christ in his heavenly position." This statement is the proverbial nail in the coffin testifying as to what Jehovah's truly believe about the Son of God.

When I look up a definition for 'Christian' I begin to see how Jehovah's (and other unlikely faiths) claim Christianity on a technicality. The term Christian is defined generically as 'a person who is a follower of Jesus and his teachings,' and Christ is defined merely as 'the anointed one or messiah.' I'm certain a Jehovah would admit that Jesus is a key figure in their beliefs, being that he is the "new Adam" now residing in Heaven as God's right hand man.

However, traditionally speaking, a Christian is one who professes a belief in the Trinity. No matter how nice my neighbor and his evangelizing friends are when they occasionally show up at my door, I believe it is time to call a spade a spade. The beliefs of a Jehovah's Witness more accurately puts them in line with a cult: A religious group which denies the essential doctrines of Christianity.