Monday, July 1, 2024

Contending For The Faith---Part 29

 

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.

Are Atheists Smarter Than Believers?

A few years back, I had an argument with another lawyer with whom I worked. He was an atheist and about as arrogant as you can be. He challenged me on a point of law concerning one of my cases, telling me that the case would be lost unless I changed the particular process of service I was planning to use. He was the type of guy who couldn't let anything go, and gave me no small amount of grief by constantly asking me "Are you going to change the way you serve your summons and complaint"? followed by an argument when I said "no." 

Final outcome: not only was service fine, I won the case. The next time I saw him, I said, "Before you tell me something is wrong over and over, it might help if you actually understood the topic you were discussing." He turned red with anger. About a week later, he came into my office when the door was open, and slapped a paper on my desk. "If you were really so smart, you wouldn't be praying to imaginary friends in the sky, " he said as he turned and quickly left. 

He printed out an article, the headline of which read: "Atheists are more intelligent than religious people, finds study" It referenced this study: The Relation Between Intelligence and Religiosity: A Meta-Analysis and Some Proposed Explanations.

(See journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1088868313497266) . 

Here is the study Abstract:

 A meta-analysis of 63 studies showed a significant negative association between intelligence and religiosity. The association was stronger for college students and the general population than for participants younger than college age; it was also stronger for religious beliefs than religious behavior. For college students and the general population, means of weighted and unweighted correlations between intelligence and the strength of religious beliefs ranged from −.20 to −.25 (mean r = −.24). Three possible interpretations were discussed. First, intelligent people are less likely to conform and, thus, are more likely to resist religious dogma. Second, intelligent people tend to adopt an analytic (as opposed to intuitive) thinking style, which has been shown to undermine religious beliefs. Third, several functions of religiosity, including compensatory control, self-regulation, self-enhancement, and secure attachment, are also conferred by intelligence. Intelligent people may therefore have less need for religious beliefs and practices.

As a result of this study, I find this alleged “fact” that regularly makes the rounds online: “Studies show that theists are less intelligent than atheists.”  Atheists, like my lawyer colleague, want to reinforce their claim that religion is for the poor, ignorant, unintelligent, and non-believers are well-off, well-educated, and super-smart. 

The purpose of this post will be to explain what this study (and those like it) really means. I will then show some very unintelligent attacks on faith used by atheists; attacks which only seem intelligent. 

I have taken this information from numerous sources, both online and in books. I wish to credit these sources and will take personal credit only for putting all the information into a terse and readable post. God bless you all, my dear readers---Introibo

What Studies Really Prove

First, many people should be acquainted with the power of  statistics to bolster weak arguments. To paraphrase and old adage, "There are three types of lies: white lies, big lies, and statistics." So let me say from the very outset that even if we could reliably measure which group is smarter, the answer wouldn’t tell us anything about the truth of Christianity. Intelligence doesn’t equate to always having the right answer.

Second, what do those 63 studies actually demonstrate? A breakdown reveals the following:

  • 35 showed a significant negative relationship between intelligence and religiousness (the more intelligent a person, the less likely to be religious).
  • 2 showed a significant positive relationship between intelligence and religiousness (the more intelligent a person, the more likely to be religious).
  • 26 showed no significant relationship between intelligence and religiousness.
Therefore, roughly 55.5% of the studies found religious people less intelligent than atheists, but almost half (44.5%) found showed no such finding. The researchers of the meta-analysis wrote: The relation between intelligence and religiosity has been examined repeatedly, but so far there is no clear consensus on the direction and/or the magnitude of this association. (See study citation above).
Yet, the atheists are trying to show this as a definitive statement of fact that they are scientifically proven to be more intelligent than believers. They are depending on "sound bites" from the media that are misleading and the lack of checking by religious people as to the actual content of the meta-analysis. 

The validity of this meta-analysis is inconclusive. There are several major methodological flaws:

  • Some studied precollege teens, some studied college students, and some studied non-college adults (people recruited outside an academic context).
  • Sample sizes ranged from 20 to more than 14,000
  • The studies were done over an 84-year span of time (the earliest study in 1928, the most recent in 2012)
How do you measure "religiosity"?  Some studies measured religious behavior (for example, church attendance and/or participation in religious organizations) and some measured religious beliefs (for example, belief in God and the Bible). This is very difficult to quantify. 

There are problems with the intelligence measurements. Twenty-three different types of tests were used to measure intelligence (for example, university entrance exams, vocabulary tests, scientific literacy tests, etc.). Details weren’t provided on how exactly each study measured religious behavior and beliefs, but that surely varied extensively as well.

Serious methodological concerns aside, The results suggest a negative relationship specifically between intelligence and religious belief for adults, but the mathematical magnitude of that relationship is very small. Religious belief has a very weak negative relationship with intelligence for college and non-college adults. (The higher the intelligence, the less likely a person is to have religious beliefs; the weak relationship is a -0.17 correlation between intelligence and religious beliefs for the college studies and a -0.20 correlation for the non-college studies). To give an example, I wouldn't consider someone with an IQ of 120 to be "less intelligent" than someone with an IQ of 125. The difference is not large enough to be significant.

When combatting this nonsense that is how to respond. You should not list the impressive geniuses who believed in God, such as Aquinas, Bonaventure, Copernicus, Bruno, Kepler, Galileo, Pascal, Descartes, Newton, Bach, and Mendel, just to name a very few. It doesn’t matter if the 50 or even 1,000 most intelligent people on Earth are theists or not—that doesn’t statistically mean anything about the relative intelligence of theists as a group. Engage instead on the studies underlying the atheists’ claims by sharing this analysis.

Twenty (Vacuous) Statements
One of the many loathsome atheists doing all he can to take people away from God is Michael Nugent. Nugent is the chairman of Atheist Ireland. The group describes itself as follows:

Atheist Ireland is a democratic and successful advocacy group for secularism, rationality, pluralism and human rights. We led the successful campaign to Repeal the Irish Blasphemy Law, and we are the only national-level atheist advocacy group to have special consultative status at the United Nations.

Formed in November 2008, Atheist Ireland promotes atheism and reason over superstition and supernaturalism, and also promotes an ethical, secular society where the State does not support or finance or give special treatment to any religion.

Atheist Ireland has a democratic structure and is a major player in leading reform, promoting wellbeing, equality, justice, rationality and human rights in Ireland and abroad. We adhere to a policy of peaceful and legal advocacy via debates, media, information tables, lunches, education, lobbying and rational argument etc. (See atheist.ie/information/about/).

Just before Vatican II, Ireland stood with Belgium, Italy, and Spain as among the most Catholic countries on Earth. As of 2022, almost 15% of Ireland has no religion. (See https://www.cso.ie/en/releasesandpublications/ep/p-cpp5/census2022profile5-diversitymigrationethnicityirishtravellersreligion/religion/#:~:text=Census%202022%20Results&text=The%20number%20of%20people%20who,they%20were%20Agnostic%20or%20Atheist.)

Ah, the "New Springtime of Vatican II"! Moving things along, Nugent has frequently discussed "20 statements" that make "God improbable." While I have not been able to locate a list of all twenty statements, I have found some. Rather than "making God improbable," they make Nugent nonsensical. 

I will list a small sample of his statements against God, with a short response below. (N.B. Nugent blasphemously refers to God as "it.")

1. If God is changeless then "it" (God) cannot create anything because it would have to change in order to do so.

Response: That God cannot change intrinsically and substantially conceded; that He cannot change externally and accidentally, denied. God, considered in Himself, is changeless. He "changes" insofar as He created a world with people, and He can interact with them.

2. If it is all-perfect and all-good then it would have created a perfect universe. At a minimum a perfect universe would not contain suffering or evil. If the response is that even a perfect God can only do what is logically possible then it is logically possible to have a universe without suffering or evil.

Response: It is not true that if God is all-perfect and all-good then he must create a perfect universe. That is a false assumption. On the one hand, it may be that a perfect universe is impossible. It is not feasible for God to create a world in which there are free moral agents who always do the right thing and never go wrong. Secondly, there can be cases in which God may permit suffering or evil in order to achieve some greater good. So it is just not true that in virtue of God’s perfection he has to create a world without suffering or evil. Therefore, Nugent simply fails to reckon with this crucial distinction that philosophers make between what is logically possible and what is feasible for God.

3. If God is perfect but we don’t understand how then why did God have to intervene in this perfect universe through miracles?

Response: It is NOT true that we don’t understand what God’s perfection means. We don't fully understand his moral perfection and holiness. However, the reason for miracles is that they serve as signs to people of God’s existence and activity. When Jesus Christ performed His dramatic miracles, these were signs to the people of the arrival of the Messiah in His Person. Jesus’ miracles and exorcisms were signs of  Hid Divinity. 

4.  If God is all-knowing then it knows the taste of strawberry yogurt. Yet, if it doesn’t have a body or senses then how can it know the state of anything? If the response is that saying what it knows is the truth of the proposition then it is not all-knowing; it is less than all-knowing.

Response: When someone is tasting strawberry yogurt, there is a certain mental state that the person is in. Why can’t God simply put Himself into that same mental state without having a body or taste buds? I don’t see any reason to think that He couldn’t. If there is a mental state associated with the taste of yogurt or the feeling of a rough surface or the sound of something, God can put Himself into such a mental state and thereby have that mental experience even though he doesn’t have a body with eardrums and nerve endings and taste buds.

Conclusion
The so-called "scientific fact" of atheistic superiority in intelligence is really a bald-faced lie. The meta-analysis based on various other studies does not support that contention at all. Moreover, non-believers, like Nugent, merely display their gross and culpable ignorance when making statements that demonstrate a lack of understanding of theism. "For professing themselves to be wise, they became fools." (Romans 1:22). 

27 comments:

  1. I think the simplicity of God, confounds and confuses the prideful intelligent. I don't think Nugent and many others understand that the world when it was created by God was a good and beautiful place to live, God could not do nothing less, but through the evil and wicked designs of men, whether intelligent or not, make it a hard place to live in.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @anon6:36
      The "free will defense"--the necessity of allowing bad things to occur in a world of creatures with freedom. You are correct, that atheists ignore or try and circumvent it. Pride indeed!

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  2. Pride and haughtiness are the hallmarks of atheists who think they are superior because they have access to scientific knowledge and because they have invented a system of moral values in which they have replaced God with man and his "rights". It's satanic ! The devil made our first parents believe that they would be like God, and we can see where this has led the world. Atheists are not without God, they are their own god.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Simon,
      Yes! The First Commandment does not say, "Thou shalt not be an atheist," but "Thou shalt not have strange gods before Me." If one does not serve the true God, their god becomes whatever they put first in life, be it drugs/alcohol, sex, money, power, or even science.

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    2. Atheists are proud because they feel intellectually superior to believers. But the Bible tells us to whom God gives His preference, and it's not to proud people (so much for the sodomites who celebrated their "pride month" and the modernists who approve of them).

      Delete
  3. That sounds a little like what Candace Owens was saying yesterday. Very interesting Simon!

    ReplyDelete
  4. Did God create the perfect universe before the fall?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. John,
      Perhaps. It is not settled dogma. God is free to create as He wishes, and it need not be "the best of all possible worlds" as philosopher Leibnitz taught.

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    2. Thank you Intriobo. I enjoyed the post BTW. Is it intelligence or pride that leads to Athiesm? How can they measure it. Satan worshippers can be considered religious and there are a lot of stupid people that went to college.

      Delete
    3. John,
      I went to law school with a couple of men who we wondered "how did they get in here"? They needed the recipe to make ice. Indeed college, and even professional degrees, is not always an assurance or measurement of intelligence.

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  5. Lol strawberry yogurt

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @anon9:37
      Yeah, I got a good chuckle out of that one too!

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  6. Intriobo, I have a question for you. People that latch onto certain theories do not even get this basic premise, but I believe you agree that one cannot do evil to obtain a good. And that God would not INSPIRE a person to do evil in order to bring good out of it. I would like your response to that first.

    If a person gets elected to the Papal office and even takes a name and then is intimidated in to forfeiting it due to intimidation, regardless of what the intimidating factors are, to his own person, his family, the Vatican, the country or the world.

    In the objective realm. Supposing Siri was elected, accepted the office, and took the name of Gregory 17 and then shirked his duty due to intimidation, could God have inspired him to shirk his duty any more than God could have "inspired" Judas to betray Him in order to bring good out of it?

    I'm just trying to make sure that I'm not the one that is bats rather than the person I was trying to get this point across to. They even deny that Siri offered the Novus Ordo, and they believe the pictures showing him doing so are altered.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. John,
      You may not directly will evil to bring about good, is a basic moral principle. However, it is lawful to perform an action from which an evil effect is foreseen under certain conditions, known as The Principle of the Double Effect.

      Four conditions must obtain:
      1. The action must be good or morally indifferent
      2. a good effect must follow from the act, and it must not follow through the evil effect
      3. the agent must ONLY intend the good effect
      4. the person performing the act must have a sufficiently weighty reason for permitting the evil result that follows.
      (See theologians McHugh and Callan, "Moral Theology," [1929], 1:36).

      As to your second query, God does not inspire evil. However, it is not impossible for someone to resign the office of the papacy. The Holy Ghost does not prevent it.
      Pope St. Celestine V promulgated a decree confirming the right of a pope to resign, which he then did on December 13, 1294. A pope resigning is not necessarily "shirking duty" or a moral failure as he was subsequently canonized a saint by Pope Clement V in 1313.

      Whether or not Siri was ever elected is a much debated matter and is by no means settled. I don't believe that he was elected.

      See my post:
      https://introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.com/2015/02/one-question-siri-cant-answer.html

      The idea that Siri never offered the Novus Bogus and "altered pictures" I put in the same category as those who claim the Earth is Flat.

      I hope this helped, John!

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo



      Delete
    2. Thank you intriobo. You have a wealth of knowledge. So in the above scenario would it have been possible for God to have inspired Siri to retire? Supposing he knew he would be replaced by Roncalli.

      I should understand based upon the four conditions you provided.

      But sadly I need to understand how or if the principle of double effect would apply in the above example.

      Either in the objective realm or in your opinion which I value very highly.

      Delete
    3. It seems the good Siri would have intended was the safety of bodies over the salvation of souls.

      Delete
    4. John,
      I am not convinced that Siri resigned or was ever elected in the first place. Let's assume "ad arguendo" that he was validly elected. Pope St. Celestine made it clear that a pope made lawfully resign and it is not therefore immoral UNLESS there is a positive duty to remain in office. The Holy Ghost does not prevent the pope from resigning. He will not be forced to be the Vicar of Christ against his free will. I don't believe that anyone is inspired by God to resign the papacy.

      Would the resignation of Siri be a moral evil imputed to him? That depends. Did he understand that Roncalli was a heretic incapable of obtaining office and would start a counterfeit "Catholic" sect? Did he think it was merely a powerplay and Roncalli would be a true pope protected by the power of the Holy Ghost? Only God knows that answer.

      We must also look at the objective facts of how Siri went along with Vatican II. He was compromised like Spellman. On THAT count he stands guilty. As I wrote in my post on the topic:

      " Siri also said the Novus Bogus invalid Vatican II bread and wine service, never supported any Traditionalist group (sedevacantist or SSPX), and publicly recognized Rocalli (John 23), Montini (Paul 6), Luciani (JP I) and Wotyla (JP II) as "popes." He used the invalid Vatican II "sacraments," and gave the "homily" at the "mass" of Christian Burial for John Paul I (Luciani). Of course, we can always concoct boogeymen to say he was "coerced" into all of this for over 30 years. You know; Masonic death threats, Communist threats of nuclear war, etc. But how credible does all this sound? Couldn't he have at least done as much as Bishop Antonio de Castro Mayer of Campos, Brazil and refuse to use the new "mass" and "sacraments" in his diocese? Despite claims by some that he did this, it is unsubstantiated. The fact that he used the new "mass" and "sacraments" is incontrovertible...Had he been elected, it seems that he would have lost his office by becoming a heretic, unless you posit that he was under constant grave duress for over 30 years!"

      Whether Siri ever was pope and resigned (validly or not) it has no bearing on us today. Again, as I wrote, "were the pope (at least during the conclave and before the signing of the Vatican II documents) this would make John XXII an Antipope--as well as Montini (Paul VI). However, we already know that these two papal claimants could not be popes on wholly separate and independent grounds. Ditto for JP I and JP II, had he somehow retained his office until his death in 1989. We are still in a state of sedevacante, and the Vatican II sect must be opposed."

      So you are not bats at all. If Siri were elected and resigned, he may well be held culpable of sin by God. The fact that he apostatized after V2 is undeniable. No matter how you look at it, the so-called "Siri Theory" does nothing to the analysis of where we are (in the Great Apostasy) and how we got here. The Principle of the Double Effect does nothing to hold the Modernists (and those who didn't oppose them) inculpable of the grave sin of apostasy.

      God Bless, my friend,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    5. Dear Introibo, Thank you so much for the awesome response! I love asking you questions because it always results in me having a fuller understanding on what I thought I already knew!!! I know you are busy so thank you for taking the time out to respond!

      Delete
    6. John,
      Always glad to be of help my friend!

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  7. Introibo

    I posted a comment to Dominic on his last writing.

    A friend rang me to say that someone in the local Bogus Ordo clown house told them that the "priest " there said the other day that Rome and Francis have not committed any formal heresy .No one has the right to make that judgement . What is the best way to expose this "priest's " trash . Can you give three or four solid examples .

    God bless you and many thanks

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @anon7:23
      No doubt Dominic missed it with his busy schedule, but I'm more than happy to reply!

      First, people throw around theological terms they often do not understand. If by "formal heresy" he means "not judged by the Church as a heretic" (I knew a R&R priest who used this all the time) that is conceded; the First See is judged by no one is a procedural maxim.

      To be a formal heretic, one must know, and with pertinacity, reject a dogma of Divine and Catholic Faith. Bergoglio cannot be a material heretic, as he is a cleric. According to theologian MacKenzie, “If the delinquent making this claim [i.e., he didn't know something was contrary to Catholic dogma---Introibo] be a cleric, his plea for mitigation must be dismissed, either as untrue, or else as indicating ignorance which is affected, or at least crass and supine… His ecclesiastical training in the seminary, with its moral and dogmatic theology, its ecclesiastical history, not to mention its canon law, all insure that the Church’s attitude towards heresy was imparted to him.” (See "The Delict of Heresy in its Commission, Penalization, Absolution," CUA Press, [1932]).

      Again, according to MacKenzie, "The very commission of any act which signifies heresy...gives sufficient ground for juridical presumption of heretical depravity...Excusing circumstances have to be proven in the external forum, and the burden of proof is on the person whose action gave rise to the imputation of heresy. In the absence of such proof, all such excuses are presumed not to exist." (See Delict, pg. 35).

      Now, that terms are clear, what formal heresy has Bergoglio committed? I'll give three solid examples.

      1. Blessing Sodomite "Couples." Note well that the sodomites who want their perverted relationship "blessed" are asking for approval to commit homosexual acts which are intrinsically evil. As such they are not seeking remission of sin, freedom from the power of evil spirits, preservation/restoration of bodily health, or any other benefit for their soul. They want God, through His One True Church, to acknowledge intrinsically evil acts as worthy of respect, special recognition, and not to be condemned. This is an approval of something for which no approval can ever be given for any reason.
      For the full explanation see my post:

      https://introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.com/2023/10/blessing-intrinsic-evil.html

      CONTINUED BELOW

      Delete
    2. 2. Declaring Capital Punishment is Wrong in Principle.
      As demonstrated from the teachings of the pre-V2 popes, theologians, the Bible, and the constant practice of the Church, capital punishment is not wrong in principle. If capital punishment really were, after all, always and intrinsically immoral, this would be an admission that the Universal and Ordinary Magisterium can teach error and give evil---a denial of the dogma of the Indefectibility of the Church.

      For the full explanation see my post:

      https://introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.com/2018/08/executing-truth.html

      3. God Wills False Religions.
      Francis and Sheik Ahmad el-Tayeb, Grand Imam of al-Azhar, a leading authority for many Sunni Muslims, signed a document on "human fraternity," and improving Christian-Moslem relations. (See https://www.ncronline.org/news/theology/does-god-want-religious-diversity-abu-dhabi-text-raises-questions). "The pluralism and the diversity of religions, color, sex, race and language are willed by God in his wisdom, through which he created human beings," the document said. Some have tried to defend this, including the Modernist Vatican, by claiming God wills false religions permissively (like other evils) and not positively.

      Don't be fooled. Read the context. Diversity of religion is listed with color, sex, language, and race. God positively wills male and female, as well as different colors, races, and languages. Yet we are to believe that religion was meant to be understood differently than the others in the same sentence? That God would positively will false sects with their false morals is the logical conclusion of religious liberty. The Vatican II sect has given power to the false sects of the world, especially Islam. That declaration means nothing to them, as they continue to multiply while the Vatican II sect uses contraception on grounds of "conscience." Moslems (like Mormons) aggressively proselytize, while Bergoglio proclaims converting others as "solemn nonsense." There are plenty of Moslem countries, but not one truly Catholic State left. Don't be surprised if in the near future we witness the Grand Imam of the Islamic Republic of Italy issuing fatwas from the erstwhile St. Peter's Basilica.

      Please read my two posts referenced above so you fully grasp the heresy. I hope this helps!

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  8. Wow Introibo thank you so much for your answers and the quick reply.

    This same "priest" has been giving a talk each week for the last month or so on the subject of the Novus Ordo "Mass" and it's parts and the biblical foundations for it . He dresses up his Sunday celebration with nice vestments and incense but as I told my friend it is not Catholic and invalid . How can folk be so duped .

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @anon9:54
      Many are duped. Remember the Words of Christ, "However, when the Son of Man comes, will He find any faith on the earth?" (St. Luke 18:8). It was, of course, a rhetorical question, clearly implying there would be very little of the True Faith left. Always thank God that He gave you the grace to be one of those few, and pray that you may persevere in it until the end.

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  9. Introibo

    What is very frighting is the fast growth of Islam . A friend the other day told me that he was speaking to someone in the local store and they said there was a moslem family near by that had 20 children . Look how few children are in the Novus Ordo .

    God bless

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @anon11:25
      You're absolutely correct. Here's some scary stats on the "Eldest Daughter of the Catholic Church," the formerly Catholic France:

      * As of 2020, 51% of the population aged 18 to 59 in metropolitan France said they had no religion.

      *While Catholicism (Vatican II sect) remains the dominant religion (29% of the population declare themselves to be Catholic), Islam confirms its place as the second religion in France (10%).

      (Source: https://www.insee.fr/en/statistiques/7342918?sommaire=7344042#:~:text=While%20Catholicism%20remains%20the%20dominant,%2C%20and%2034%25%20of%20Jews.).

      If you visit Paris and hear a grinding noise, that's probably the great King St. Louis IX turning over in his grave. God save France--and the rest of the world.

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  10. I told this story before, but back in 1999/2000, I got into a discussion on what was then mIRC CNN chat and we can say whatever we wanted then. I argued with a guy who was 50+ and had 30 years experience defending his positions and I had less than five years then (being 20 ish at the time). No one won, but I think that was a duel to be proud of : )

    Now of course, I have considerably more than 5 years...

    As for Siri (noting some of the above comments) I believe he it was who was "taken up to God, and to His throne (Apoc. 12: 5).

    It means his reign was not to commence at that time.

    Someone will be right on this. I have no trouble witnessing to whom got it right. It's not due to pride we keep the Faith.

    ReplyDelete