In St. Jude 1:3, we read, "Dearly beloved, taking all care to write unto you concerning your common salvation, I was under a necessity to write unto you: to beseech you to contend earnestly for the faith once delivered to the saints." [Emphasis mine]. Contending For The Faith is a series of posts dedicated to apologetics (i.e., the intellectual defense of the truth of the Traditional Catholic Faith) to be published the first Monday of each month. This is the next installment.
Sadly, in this time of Great Apostasy, the faith is under attack like never before, and many Traditionalists don't know their faith well enough to defend it. Remember the words of our first pope, "But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect..." (1Peter 3:16). There are five (5) categories of attacks that will be dealt with in these posts. Attacks against:
- The existence and attributes of God
- The truth of the One True Church established by Christ for the salvation of all
- The truth of a particular dogma or doctrine of the Church
- The truth of Catholic moral teaching
- The truth of the sedevacantist position as the only Catholic solution to what has happened since Vatican II
In addition, controversial topics touching on the Faith will sometimes be featured, so that the problem and possible solutions may be better understood. If anyone had suggestions for topics that would fall into any of these categories, you may post them in the comments. I cannot guarantee a post on each one, but each will be carefully considered.
Campaign Slogans Against God
In 1992, the detestable Bill Clinton was elected President of the United States using the slogan, "It's the economy, stupid." The economic boom of the Reagan era was over, and sitting President George H. W. Bush was taking the flak. Bush was continuing to talk about abortion and the role of religion in public life, while Clinton was basically saying: "Jobs and prices are all that really matter." The catchphrase (and the message it represented) worked; Clinton defeated Bush in November.
Here in New York City ("The Woke Capital of the World"), it's fashionable to be atheistic, agnostic, or even indifferent about religious belief because "all beliefs are more or less good and lead to God." Many times I make acquaintance with one of these people and all they really have to offer is a bumper sticker slogan, much like Clinton in 1992. Many people don't know how to respond, and the foe of God appears to win with his "intellectual zinger." Had I been running against Bill Clinton, I would have had a bumper sticker with a picture of an aborted child in the third trimester with the slogan, "It's a baby, stupid."
The thrust of Clinton's message was "a robust economy is of more importance than abortion." However, if abortion is murder, you're claiming that killing innocent babies is "no big deal" compared to inflation. The implicit premise is that abortion is not murder, so the economy is what really matters. Juxtapose a picture of Hitler with people being taken to Dachau, and have have the Fuhrer say, "We need to concentrate on what's really important, the economy, dummkopf!" Just like that the wind gets taken out of the sails in Slick Willie's slogan, and the debate shifts to where it belongs--the humanity of the unborn.
In this post, I will present three such anti-God slogans, and how to respond.
"If God Existed, His Presence Would Be Obvious"
This is commonly called the argument of the "hiddenness of God." If God existed, He would make Himself known like things we see around us everyday. Skipping the complex philosophical arguments, the common-talking person will say, "Religious people keep trying to prove that God exists. No one tries to prove the Earth exists, or that trees exist. Surely, God should be as obvious as that! So where is God hiding?"
Four points may be made:
- When you look at the Pieta, where is Michelangelo hidden? He is not inside the statue or a part of it, yet the existence of the statue itself points towards a creator. God is not just another piece of the universe like the Earth or a tree, so we cannot expect to perceive Him the same way. The universe cries out that there is a Creator.
- If God made Himself more obvious, people would not necessarily follow Him. People know they should eat right, exercise, not smoke, not drink to excess, etc., yet many people do it anyway. People who kept God's Laws would do it more from fear than love, stopping growth in character. It's akin to someone donating to charity whose sole motivation is to impress other people.
- The Fall of our First Parents contributed to hiddenness. A more intimate experience of God was given-up as a consequence of Original Sin and living in a fallen world.
- God is not the same as us and we cannot apply human expectations to Him; He has His own reasons. Isaiah 55:8, “For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways,” declares the Lord. Romans 11:33-34, O the depth of the riches of the wisdom and of the knowledge of God! How incomprehensible are his judgments, and how unsearchable his ways! For who hath known the mind of the Lord? Or who hath been his counsellor?
"Religion is the cause of wars and violence. If God existed, He wouldn't have a religion."
This is not a direct attack on God's existence, but is an indirect attempt to show that religion is not good and cannot come from God if He did exist. This line is usually taken by the "I'm spiritual but not religious" crowd. Be prepared to hear the person mention the Inquisition, witch hunts, the Crusades, 9/11 terrorist attacks, etc. I suggest you do not get drawn into arguing about specific events (e.g., the Inquisition). Instead, attack the basic premise of this assertion because it is demonstrably false.
- Just because people misuse religion to fight wars or incite violence, does not make the religion false. Christ did not want people unnecessarily fighting wars or doing acts of violence. There is the Just War principle. However, all of this can be misused. You can use a knife to cut your steak or stab your dinner guest to death. It's the misuse of the steak knife to kill someone that is wrong/evil, not the steak knife itself which was not intended for that purpose.
- There have been more wars and acts of violence from atheism. The Soviet Union under Stalin, Communist China, the French Revolution and its Reign of Terror, Hitler's Nazi Germany all had wars/acts of violence without religious causes.
- According to the Encyclopedia of Wars, (2004), by Phillips and Axelrod, only 123 out of 1,763 wars were motivated by religion. That's only about 7%. Hardly a majority.
"You Believe in Christ because you live in the United States and had Christian parents. If you lived in Saudi Arabia, you'd believe in Mohammed and Islam"
I've heard this one many times. What's the unspoken premise? That geography and your surroundings growing up determine your beliefs. Hence, if you're born in India, you must be a Hindu; if you're born in Israel, you must be Jewish. While it's true that upbringing and culture have a strong influence on beliefs and behavior, they cannot be determinative unless you deny free will. Moreover, there is ample evidence that beliefs are not unalterably determined by circumstances.
Consider the following three assertions:
1. Most people inherit their religious beliefs.
2. There are very few who believe in Christ living in Saudi Arabia, and many such believers in the United States.
3. Christ is True God and True Man.
There is nothing that prevents all three statements from being simultaneously true. Ask the person who says this bumper sticker statement, "Do you believe that women should have equal rights with men?" Of course, he will respond "Yes." (If they start with the "What about trans-women" nonsense, change the question to "Do you believe in equal rights for LGTBQIA+ people?") Then say, "Well you only believe in that because you live in America. If you were living in Saudi Arabia, you'd be a Moslem and would be against equal rights for women and homosexuals, right?" They will protest that they believe in equal rights not only because of where they live and how they were raised, but because they studied the issue and came to this conclusion. Then flip it on them: "Well that could also be equally true in matters of religion."
This anti-religious statement claiming that circumstances determine religion is based on what is called the genetic fallacy in logic. The fallacy says that a proposition is wrong (or correct) based on where the idea originated. A claim is ignored in favor of attacking or exalting its source. 2+2=4 is true and doesn't become false because Stalin said it. 2+2=5 is wrong, even if St. Francis of Assisi said it.
Conclusion
We live in an age of soundbites and memes. People repeat short and seemingly sagacious one or two line statements without bothering to think about what those sayings really imply. To defend against such attacks on God and His One True Church, always think about what this "witty person" is really spewing. When you can see the underlying contention, you can expose both the claim and the person making it to be--to paraphrase Shakespeare-- "shadows without substance."
There was a campaign promoting atheism with the slogan: "There's probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life." If there is no God, how to explain the world and its laws ? Can chance produce order ? Can nothingness generate being ? Are there laws without a legislator ? What is the use of the present life if there is no life after death, no eternal reward for those who have done good during their lifetime and eternal punishment for criminals ? These are good questions to ask atheists.
ReplyDeleteWhat's funny about this slogan is that these atheists don't seem certain that there is no God. But they live as if there is no God at all. We see it every day: abortions by the millions, sodomites who marry and adopt children, people who are euthanized at their own request. The godless world exalts reason above faith while reason can prove the existence of God. Atheist scientists like Dawkins spend their entire lives studying the laws of the universe, but they fail to discover the Creator of the world and its laws. A huge waste of time !
Simon,
DeleteDawkins has been repeatedly challenged by Dr. William Lan Craig, a Protestant philosopher, to debate him on the existence of God. Dawkins continues to refuse. He realizes he's way out of his league. Dawkins is an expert in biology, but makes faulty philosophic assumptions and arguments, which Dr. Craig understands all too well.
A while ago, Dr. Craig decided to hold the debate with or without Dawkins--giving a lecture if he didn't show. Sure enough, Dawkins was "missing in action"! Dr. Craig put up slogans on buses with the empty chair at the debate and the words--"There is no Dawkins."
God Bless,
---Introibo
Disney threw a temper tantrum at the so-called "don't say gay" bill. I therefore decided made an article about the Walt Disney Company (not the movies) https://quisutdeusinenglish.blogspot.com/2022/04/disney-is-cancelled.html
ReplyDeleteIf anyone is interested
Poni,
DeleteExcellent post! I recommend it to all my readers!
God Bless,
---Introibo
Many Thanks
DeleteGreat article, Poni!
DeleteIt's crazy just how big this Disney enterprise has gotten over the decades. Their stuff seems to be everywhere now, on children's cups and backpacks, T-shirts, towels, snacks and soda drinks; they're ubiquitous, and so are the sick, perverse ideas they promote.
Disney is the modern Moloch of the entertainment industry, to whom unsuspecting parents are
sacrificing the innocence of their children. Truly sickening!
Thank you, Poni, for exposing them!
God Bless,
Joanna S.
Thank you, Joanna S, I liked your article on St. Andrew Bobola as well.
DeleteJust to show their influence, here in Mexico you can see their characters painted willy-nilly in the paper stores, candy stores, tortilla stores, clothing stores and more owned by the poor. I have seen derelict communities when you can still find princess towels.
Not opposed on principle of putting Mickeys on pasta soup kits, but there is this degree when it becomes just cringe.
Thank you all for your support. God Bless You.
Helo, Introibo, I think I recall reading one of your posts on the waldorf school? If that was you, could you provide a link to that article please?
ReplyDelete@anon1:00
DeleteHere it is:
http://introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.com/2018/06/an-education-in-evil.html
God Bless,
---Introibo
Thank you sir!
DeleteI'll remember to use such counter arguments mentioned in the article with some people I have to deal with in case they bring up such shallow one line zingers. Thank you! Poni had an interesting article about Disney. Thank you as well Poni.
ReplyDeleteHere is another article with a wake up call
https://stevensperay.wordpress.com/2022/04/03/when-the-church-and-world-are-one/
Lee
Lee,
DeleteAnother great post by Steve Speray!
God Bless,
---Introibo
Excellent salient points.
ReplyDeleteClinton won 42% of the popular vote.
God bless -Andrew
Andrew,
DeleteThank you my friend! I hope you find them useful.
God Bless,
---Introibo
I thought you were going to celebrate atheism - but it's the 4th, not the 1st!
ReplyDeleteHans,
DeleteNo April Fool here!
God Bless,
---Introibo
Mainstream Progressivist Slogans:
ReplyDelete"My Body my choice"
"Love is Love"
"Trans Women are Women"
"Black Lives Matter"
"That's a conspiracy theory"
"That's from Qanon"
"Follow the Science"
"I Believe in Science"
"Stay Home Save Lifes"
"We need to protect democracy"
Liberal Conservative Slogans:
"it is fine if it doesn't hurt anybody"
"America is a great country"
"The only way of getting rid of bad speech is more speech"
"We need to protect democracy and freedom"
"The left can not meme and lacks humor"
Slogans rule the world.
Catholic Archive,
DeleteSadly, slogans do rule the world. You've listed all the currently popular ones quite well!
God Bless,
---Introibo
A very excellent article.
ReplyDelete@anon7:12
DeleteThank you my friend!
God Bless,
---Introibo
It seems to me it was when the "Libertarians" attached themselves to Traditionalist/Conservative politics, that the (probably phony to begin with) Right Wing had a major setback. I remember when they held to a separate ideology and had their own 3rd party. That attachment was a fatal flaw for conservatism; you can't "conserve" anything when you start off conceding half your argument to the opposition. Before long, you lose it all.
ReplyDeleteThanks, Intro - Very good article!
- Jannie
Jannie,
DeleteExcellent analysis!
God Bless,
---Introibo
Great point Jannie!
DeleteEvening Introibo
ReplyDeleteJust been reading the two writings of Bishop Pivarunas concerning Stephen Heiner available on the right side of the main CMRI website.Bishop Pivarunas makes the comment that any writings need be approved by a bishop according to canons 1384-1405.Are your writings approved by a bishop?Any Traditional Catholic layman can make his ideas,etc available online for all to read.Having spend a brief amount of time at Nater Dei seminary,I find it low that the bishop could say this.He has no true seminary training,ran away from home at the age of 14 to join Schuckardt and self appointed himself as bishop elect in 1991.I would value your comments.Your vews are always excellent.Have a grace filled Holy Week and a Blessed Easter.God bless you and all your readers
@anon2:42
DeleteThose Canons are made for usual times when there was a hierarchy with Ordinary Jurisdiction. They do not apply to bishops used to perpetuate the hierarchy in this time of Great Apostasy.
God Bless,
---Introibo
Yes,thank you very much for your words.I should of said Mater Dei.The bishop should know that we are not in ordinary times.Keep up your fine site.
DeleteAnon 2:42,
DeleteBp. Pivarunas was NOT a self appointed bishop. Bp. Carmona asked the CMRI if they would need a bishop for their congregation and the priests came to an agreement that he should be the one. So he was chosen not self appointed.
Also Schuckardt was renounced for his cult like behavior and strange doctrines and the CMRI priests ordained by him were in doubt as to whether they were priests. Bp. George Musey (Thuc Bishop) conditionally re-ordained all the men whose line came from Schuckardt (which was from the Old Catholics) and he was no longer part of the CMRI as of 1985. Which means he was no longer part of the congregation as you make it sound. It's a Catholic Marian society which didn't change its name despite the past and they run things as best as they can. They have some of the most charitable priests.
I'm not sure why he ran away from home (if he even did) but you make it sound as though he was a renegade and that it's a fact. Bp. Pivarunas is very aware that we are not in ordinary times.
Stephen Heiner can have his opinions about his disagreement with the CMRI. I can have my disagreement with Stephen Heiner and the CMRI about some things, but who cares?
Lee
Your last paragraph summarized it perfectly, Lee.
DeleteRegarding Bp. Pivarunas or any other Bishop functioninging in the "extraordinary" manner, I just think that because these are days of great confusion and apostasy, it is a situation where even theologically well-trained Churchmen are finding themselves debating and even quarreling among themselves about certain hot button issues. Since these issues don't directly touch on Faith or Morals and are still officially unsettled, there is no sin in their arguing about them. We shouldn't be scandalized by it, then, nor by any rumors we read about or hear.
I wish a Blessed Easter and God's Peace to you all!
Thank you, Intro.
Mary, Help of Christians, pray for us.
-Jannie
Jannie and Lee,
DeleteWell said by you both!
God Bless,
---Introibo
I live over in Europe Introibo.Can you have a look at the website of Stephen at True Restoration Blog and his 3 part writings on the CMRI.My family would be interested in your comments too.I agree that Bp Pivarunas should know these are not ordinary times(he preaches on the Great Apostasy)talk about confused.Yes,your website is indeed fine,I would say outstanding
ReplyDelete@anon6:20
DeleteI will try to look it over and comment later this week when I get break in my schedule.
God Bless,
---Introibo
Another great article, thank you Lee.
DeleteMy impression of this recent CMRI vs. True Restoration clash is that this is another unfortunate division that didn’t have to be, very much like the Thuc-line bishops issue with the SSPV.
But I would like to hear Introibo’s take on this, especially as regards the marriage annulments criticism. I read the TR articles carefully, but they really don’t give enough information in my opinion to make any sort of determination of whether they actually have a case against the CMRI on this point. Perhaps others can provide some insight here?
As Introibo and others have said many times though, such conflicts are not altogether unexpected when we have no Pope to appeal to.
A blessed Holy Week to each and all!
Pauper Peccator
Pauper Peccator,
DeleteLee is great, but this post is mine! The CMRI do not, to the best of my knowledge and belief, give out annulments. They declare something OBVIOULY INVALID to be the case, e.g., a Traditionalist who marries a Jew before a civil judge. True Restoration excoriates the CMRI because of the fact that they allow others to go to an "Una Cum" Mass, even though they never offer such themselves. That, in my opinion, brings the Una Cum issue to a whole new level of lunacy. The late Fr. Cekada never even went that far. He unfortunately claimed that a dying Traditionalist could not receive Holy Viaticum from a valid SSPX priest since the Blessed Eucharist had been confected at an Una Cum! However, to receive the Last Rites from an Eastern Schismatic under the same condition is fine.
You are correct my friend, "such conflicts are not altogether unexpected when we have no Pope to appeal to."
Have a Happy Easter!
---Introibo
Introibo,
DeleteMea culpa! I had two articles open and thought I was commenting on the other piece!
Thanks for the info on the CMRI, I thought it might be something like that.
A blessed Paschaltide to you and yours!
Pauper Peccator