Wow! Just wow! This book was absolutely amazing! If you are a priest reading this, you need to go buy yourself a copy of Priest – The Man Of God right now. I’ve bought several copies as gifts to my friends in the priesthood, and I can only say that this is a wonderful work from a holy author.

Let me answer that in a round about way.

It may prove helpful to first know of the famous St. John Bosco who was affectionately known as “Don” Bosco. Don Bosco:

• Founded the Preventative Method of education that emphasized kindness over punishment
• Opened orphanages for street children and helped reform young men away from a life of crime
• Had prophetic dreams, a collection of which were compiled into Forty Dreams of St. John Bosco: The Apostle of Youth.

Now Don Bosco only wrote two books in his life. Interestingly they were both biographies, and both people went on to become saints. One was The Life of Saint Dominic Savio one of the orphans he adopted, and the other was St. Joseph Cafasso.
So if a man of Don Bosco’s caliber was so moved by his much admired contemporary as to write a biography of the man, you know he has something important to say.

Now, St. Joseph Cafasso was head of a seminary in Italy (to say nothing of his work in the gallows–for which he was best known for). That means he was responsible for priestly formation.

Priest – The Man Of God is actually a collection of sixteen talks given by St. Joseph Cafasso during a retreat for priests!

What more do I need to say? You can now go on a retreat for priests given by St. Joseph Cafasso, simply by reading this book.

Just check out these chapters (highlights from the Table of Contents):

• Second Conference: The Dispositions necessary to become a Good Priest
• Fifth Conference: The Priest must be a man of Prayer
• Ninth Conference: The Zeal of a Priest
• Eleventh Conference: Preaching
• Twelfth Conference: The Ministry of Confession

I think the two last chapters “The Priest Devoted to Mary” and “The Comforts and Consolations of a Priest” are fascinating as well.

In this book Cafasso takes us in detail through how a priest should conduct himself from dress, to speach, to amusements. He devotes special attention to preaching, and esepcially to the ministry of Confession. Do you wish you could have had St. Joseph Cafasso tell you how to hear confessions? Priests, what are you waiting for? Get the book!

Now for a few quotes, straight from the pen of St. Joseph Cafasso!

It is not possible for us, I repeat, to maintain ourselves in a state of mediocrity. – p. 33

Amen.

We shall not stop here to consider what prayer is; we know already that, considered in it’s object… a flight of the heart towards the throne of God – p. 68

Beautiful.

All around me people are laboring in this world, they are studying, they are exhausting themselves, they are wearing themselves out till they can do no more; but they labor for the mud and dirt of this world, for empty, useless folly, while I labor for God and for His glory! – p. 148

That’s it. That’s the line!

And shall we who have these days, who possess them though they are escaping from our hands so swiftly, devote them to the foolish and empty things of this world, thus bartering the glory of God for a little slime of this earth? – p. 249

Cafasso just ROCKED IT!

Unbelievable. I hope you will get a copy for your parish priest as a gift.

No related posts.

I just finished reading Victory Over Vice by Bishop Fulton Sheen. I shouldn’t have to say anything other than Fulton Sheen for you to know it’s good, but hereagoes…

Don’t let the title fool you.. far from this being a self-help book for people suffering from vice, Sheen takes us through each of the seven deadly sins and juxtaposes them to Christ’s seven words from the cross. He shows how each of Christ’s seven words refute each of the seven sins. He draws rich comparisons from Christ’s life and uses incredible analogies and vivid imagery; the famous hallmark of this incredible author.

That being said, if you were indeed struggling with a specific sin, this is definitely the book for you. Coming in at seven chapters, Sheen will give you an entire chapter of examples from Christ’s life as well as practical advice to help you with whatever you are struggling with. He makes such good connections between things that on every page there is yet another brilliant observation. Sheen is a master, a true treasure of the Catholic Church and for all faiths, and this book is thrilling to read…

The avarice of the rich is being matched by the envy of the poor. Some poor hate the rich, not because they have unjustly stolen their possessions, but because they want their possessions. – p. 19

Have you ever found yourself thinking like this?

Born between an ox and an ass, they now crucify Him between two criminals. That was the last insult they could give Him. To the public eye, they created the impresion that three theives, and not two, were silhouetted against the sky. In a certain sense, it was true: two stole gold out of avarice; one stole hearts out of love. – p. 21

Oh how beautiful is that line! I could have died when I read that.

many in the world today who are envious of wealth would probably lose their souls if they had that wealth. – p. 22

So true Sheen! As Our Lord said in Matthew 19:24, “Again I say to you, it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for one who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.” Perhaps poverty is a blessing… did anyone ever think of that?

It looks not so much to the good of the other, as to the pleasure of self. – p. 32

If you really loved someone you would be capable of forgoing all physical intimacy out of love. It is love for self and one’s own pleasure that leads to impurity.

As the appeal to the spiritual relaxes, the demands of the flesh increase. – p. 32

This is what I would call the thesis statement for the masterful remedy Sheen recommends against this sin–crowd out thoughts of lust with thoughts of love for God. Drawing on modern psychology, Sheen knows that the human mind can not normally make itself “stop” thinking about something. If someone asked you not to think about a panda bear for 30 seconds, that would be all you would be able to think of! Instead, Sheen says (both here and elsewhere) to consciously fill our minds with other thoughts, namely thoughts of a higher love of God, in order to put our minds at ease.

It is never the pure who say that chastity is impossible but only the impure. – p. 33

Well said.

Two lessons are to be learned from this Third Word from the Cross ["Behold thy mother"]: that the only real escape from the demands of the flesh is to find something more than the flesh to love; and that Mary is the refuge of sinners. – p. 38

There we have it! Sheen goes on masterfully to explain “the psychology of this enthusiasm for a higher love”.

Pride is an inordinate love of one’s own excellence, either of body or mind or the unlawful pleasure we derive from thinking we have no superiors. Pride being swollen egoism, it erects the human soul into a separate center of origin apart from God, exaggerates its own importance, and becomes a world in and for itself. – p. 45

Well put. What I find most striking about that is the phrase “thinking we have no superiors”. How many times have we all thought that about ourselves when performing some work or engaged in some conversation?

Pride manifests itself in many forms: atheism, which is a denial of our dependence on God, our Creator and our final end; intellectual vanity, which makes minds unteachable because they think they know all there is to know; superficiality, which judges others by their clothes, their accent, and their bank account; snobbery, which sneers at inferiors as the earmark of its own superiority, “they are not of our set”; vainglory, which prompts some Catholic parents to refuse to send their boys and girls to Catholic colleges, because they would there associate only with the children of carpenters; presumptuousness, which inclines a man to seek honors and positions quite beyond his capacity; and exaggerated sensitiveness, which makes one incapable of moral improvements because of unwillingness to hear one’s own faults. – p. 46

Fascinating.

If my own eternal salvation were conditioned upon saving the soul of one self-wise man who prided himself on his learning, or one hundred of the most morally corrupt men and women of the streets, I would choose the easier task of converting the hundred. Nothing is more difficult to conquer in all the world than intellectual pride. If battleships could be lined with it instead of armor, no shell could ever pierce it. – p. 50

lol. Goodness!

The rich boy need not wear good clothes to impress his friends with his wealth, but the poor boy must do so to create the false impression of wealth. – p. 55

I think most of my youth was spent witnessing the veracity of this statement. The poor are often the most ostentatious because of their desire to be rich.

Ok, I’ll have to stop there before I quote the whole book. Sheen is a master. What are you waiting for? Go get your copy from Amazon right now.

Instantly one of my favorite books.

No related posts.

The argument from supporters of polytheistic sects goes something like this:

Person At Your Door: We have an “Elohim God”.
You: What is that?
Person At Your Door: “Elohim” is the Hebrew word for God.. and it’s plural.
You: (Not knowing a thing about Hebrew) UHhhh…

Are you ready to learn how to respond to this argument? Don’t fret, there is only one God, and we’re about to demonstrate where these door-to-door polytheists (and poor Hebrew scholars) go wrong.

In Hebrew (as in Latin and Greek), when the subject of a sentence is plural, the rest of the verbs that apply to that subject are also made plural. If a noun is plural, the adjectives that affect that noun are also made plural. English is different.

For example take these two lines in English and their singular/plural states:

• (plural)they made it
• (singular)he made it

In English, we would be unable to tell from just the verb “made” whether the subject was plural or singular–only the subject tells us that information. In Hebrew, however, we would be able to tell, because the verb would have plural or singular endings. For example, in Hebrew the sentence would look like:

• (plural)they (plural)made it
• (singular)he (singular)made it

In Hebrew, as in Latin and Greek, we can tell whether a subject is singular or plural based upon the rest of the sentence.

So what happens when we read the book of Genesis in Hebrew? In Genesis, we find the word for God: אֱלהִים
In case you’re not up on your Hebrew, that’s translated in English as “Elohim”. Here is how you pronounce it: el-oh-HEEM. The emphasis is on the last syllable.

Elohim is the plural form of the word “El”. “El” is often used to refer to God, but can also be used to apply to other divine or important objects or persons such as angels or kings.
In Genesis, we find God (“El”) with plural endings (“Elohim”), but the verbs that affect it are singular.

In Hebrew (unlike English), when the subject is plural, but the words that apply to that subject are singular, it does not mean that the subject is plural, but rather superior. God is superior, but you already knew that didn’t you? In Hebrew this is called the pluralis excellentiae.

In other words, by giving something a “plural” ending, but making everything else in the sentence singular, we are saying how great it is. How cool is that? There’s nothing like that in English.

To say that “Elohim” means there is more than one God can only come from a lack of knowledge about the Hebrew language. This could be easily explained to us by:

• Any elementary student in Israel (where they speak Hebrew)
• 4000 years of Jewish understanding about God
• Any Rabbi
• The Wikipedia articles on Elohim and pluralis excellentiae

As you may have already guessed dear reader, yes, we see this literary device of Hebrew used in many other parts of the Bible. For example:

• The word used for “life” in Genesis 27:46 and Job 10:12
• The word used for “virtue” or “righteousness” in Isaiah 33:15
• The word used for “master” in Isaiah 19:4

More importantly though, we even see the word “Elohim” used to refer to other singular subjects.

If “Elohim” (אֱלהִים) always means plural to the uneducated Hebrew scholar, then how does that poor scholar explain:

• The word “Elohim” (plural) used to refer to Moses (singular) in Exodus 7:1? (Hebrew or English)
• The word “Elohim” (plural) used to refer to the dead prophet Samuel (singular), raised by Saul in 1 Samuel 28:13 (Hebrew or English)

That’s right. The word “Elohim” used to refer to Moses. Was Moses plural? No, he was not. Moses was singular. There are many other places where the word “Elohim” refers to singular subjects.

So the next time some kind and well-meaning folks come to your door claiming proudly to “know their Bible”, hopefully the conversation might go a little differently:

Person At Your Door: We have an “Elohim God”.
You: Yes, one God.
Person At Your Door: “Elohim” is the Hebrew word for God.. and it’s plural.
You: Yet, the verbs in that sentence are singular, which denote that the subject is superior rather than plural. This is basic Hebrew.
Person At Your Door: (Having never met anyone who could respond to that) UHhhh…
You: The word “Elohim” is often used to refer to singular subjects. For example, in Exodus 7:1, Moses is referred to as Elohim. Was Moses plural?
Person At Your Door: I don’t know… but the word is plural.
You: It has plural endings to indicate it’s greatness. If it were plural, the verbs would be plural as well. You can ask any elementary school child in Israel to explain that to you.

The Jews have been reading the Bible for about 4000 years. Hebrew is their language. Why not let the people who speak Hebrew and wrote the Old Testament tell you what the word “Elohim” means? Why not let 4000 years of Jewish understanding about Scripture that God is one, enter the picture?

Most egregiously, saying there is more than one god is a violation of the First Commandment.

No related posts.

It was 8th grade when I first heard the expression “you should never force your morality on anyone”. I was confused; I didn’t know how to respond. That thought tried to go down a pathway in my mind that wasn’t connected. I sat there trying to wrap my head around what I had just heard.

Years passed by and still I thought about this phrase. From time to time I ran into it again, on a bumper sticker, or in someone’s passing comment about how “you can’t legislate morality”. Still, I couldn’t figure out what was bothering me about this statement, or quite how to respond to it. Then I read Pro-Life 101: A Step-by-Step Guide to Making Your Case Persuasively where Scott Klusendorf responded to this exact statement and everything clicked–that statement enforces morality.

When someone says “you shouldn’t force your morality on anyone”, what they’re actually doing is forcing their morality on you. Notice the slight of hand.

That statement is a statement of morals. It is saying what is right to do, and what is wrong to do. It states a moral (that you shouldn’t force a moral), and in an act of supreme hypocrisy, forces this moral onto another person. Ironic isn’t it? The first day of filming our documentary in the Dominican Republic, we saw another variation of this on a car that read “no one knows the answer”. If that is true, then neither do you, so you’re wrong! That statement in itself assumed it knew the answer.

Here’s the passage from Klusendorf’s book that made everything click for me (though I had to read it several times to understand it):

The student said it was wrong for me to force my views on others, but she could not live with her own rule. Although our dialogue was pleasant, she clearly tried to force her views on me.
Student: You made some good points in your talk, but you shouldn’t force your morality on me or anyone else who wants an abortion. It’s our choice, isn’t it?
[Klusendorf]: Are you saying I’m wrong?
Student: I’m not sure. What do you mean?
[Klusendorf]: Well, you think I’m wrong. don’t you? If not, why are you correcting me? And if so, then you’re forcing your morality on me, aren’t you?
Student: No, I just want to know why you are telling people what they can and can not do with their lives.
[Klusendorf]: Are you saying I shouldn’t do that? That’s it’s wrong? If so, then why are you telling me what I can and can not do? Why are you forcing your morality on me?
Student (regrouping): I’m confused. Look, the simple fact is that pro-choicers are not forcing women to have abortions, but you want to force women to be mothers. If you don’t like abortion, don’t have one. But you shouldn’t force your beliefs on others. All I’m saying is that pro-life people should be tolerant of other views.
[Klusendorf]: Is that your view?
Student: Yes
[Klusendorf]: Why are you forcing it on me? That’s not very tolerant, is it?
Student: What do you mean? I think women should have a choice and you don’t. It’s your view that’s intolerant, wouldn’t you say?
[Klusendorf]: Okay, so you think I’m wrong. What is it you want pro-lifers like me to do?
Student: You should let women decide for themselves and tolerate other views.
[Klusendorf]: Tell me, what exactly do pro-choicers believe?
Student: We believe everyone should decide for themselves and tolerate other views.
[Klusendorf]: So you are demanding that pro-lifers become pro-choicers?
Student: What?
[Klusendorf]: With all due respect, here’s what I hear you saying. Unless I agree with you, you will not tolerate my view. Privately, you’ll let me think whaterver I want, but you don’t want me to act as if my view is true. It seems you think tolerance is a virtue if and only if people agree with you.
Put succinctly, her argument for tolerance was in fact a patronizing form of intolerance. She spoke of moral neutrality, but tried to force her own views on me.

As Klusendorf points out, intolerance is often masquerading in the name of tolerance. You can’t have your cake and eat it too; by telling people they’re not being tolerant, you are not tolerating them.

Moreover, I would submit to you that evil should not be tolerated. The observant reader will here ask, ‘what is evil”? That is a topic for another post; for now though, suffice it to say that rational people do not “tolerate” things that are evil. That would be illogical–that’s the reason why civilized societies have laws.

Have you ever heard anyone say “they shouldn’t do that because it’s illegal”? Is legality the ultimate arbiter of right and wrong? Do laws define ethics, or do ethics define laws? Appealing to the law is intellectually immature, because the action was wrong long before the law encoded it into society’s rule. The funny thing is, all laws enforce morality. Why is stealing illegal? It’s illegal because those making the laws thought it was wrong.

Where did this sense of right and wrong come from? It came from Natural Law. Never forget that the law of God is above the law of man. While God establishes valid authorities here on earth whom we should obey, were that authority to ask us to do something in violation of God’s law, we would have an obligation to a higher power to peaceably refuse to commit the evil.

Martin Luther King Jr said it best when he said:

We should never forget that everything Adolf Hitler did in Germany was “legal” and everything the Hungarian freedom fighters did in Hungary was “illegal.” It was “illegal” to aid and comfort a Jew in Hitler’s Germany. Even so, I am sure that, had I lived in Germany at the time, I would have aided and comforted my Jewish brothers.
- Dr. Martin Luther King Jr, Letter From Birmingham Jail

If you’ve ever found yourself saying “you can’t legislate morality”, you need to rethink that statement. Legislation is morality. In a democracy, it’s the majority opinion that defines legislation, in a monarchy it’s the ruling family, in a theocracy it’s the religious elite, etc., but each sets up laws to enforce what it believes to be right and wrong. That’s the whole point of law.

You see, what the question really becomes is, how does one define what is right and wrong? To do that, we must put aside the moral bankruptcy of Moral Relativism and appeal to the objective truth of Natural Law, or a legitimate moral authority.

No related posts.

We have many “gods” and “Jesus” running around Korea
-Prof Tark, expert on destructive cults in Korea

What is it Korea? What’s the matter? Why are you misleading so many people?

Take for instance the WMSCOG and the Unification Church.

The WMSCOG claims:

• A Korean man named Ahn Sahng-Hong was Jesus Christ (he is not)
• His romantic interest Zang Gil-Jah is god (she is not)
• Anyone outside their group doesn’t stand a chance of entering heaven (false)

Oh wait, but the Unification Church claims the exact same thing but with different people:

• A Korean man named Sun Myung Moon was Jesus Christ (he is not)
• His romantic interest Hak Ja Han is god (she is not)
• Anyone outside their group doesn’t stand of chance of entering heaven (false)

Jesus prophesied that he would return only once more–at the end of the world, and that in the mean time many false messiahs would arise. These false messiahs certainly prove the truth of Christ’s words.

I feel sorry for all of the well-meaning people in Korea and elsewhere that have been misled by groups like the WMSCOG and the Unification Church. These groups twist the Bible by cherry picking only verses that suit them, seeking to convince people of the strangest things–unheard of in all of Christianity for 2000 years.

People are hungry for God; and groups such as these are taking advantage of well-meaning, God-fearing individuals.

No related posts.

I just finished reading The Seven Laws of Teaching by John Milton Gregory, and all I can say is wow. This book has been saying everything I’ve been realizing about the way people learn and more. It took the few words I had right out of my mouth, formulated them more concretely and told me things that would have taken a lifetime to figure out. It’s no wonder, as the author is Ex-President of the State University of Illinois, he’s obviously had some experience teaching.

I’ve always been preaching to whomever will listen that “people learn by connecting the dots.. you have to relate the previous thought to the next in order to understand.”

When I opened this book and started reading things like:

Begin with what is already well known to the pupil in the lesson or upon the subject, and proceed to the unknown by single, easy, and natural steps, letting the known explain the unknown.
Ch 1, #9

- and -

It is only the unskillful and self-seeking teacher who prefers to hear his own voice in endless talk, rather than watch the working of his pupil’s thoughts.
Ch 6, #27

I knew this was going to be a good book.

Then he started blowing my mind by telling me how my own mind worked. He started to explain things that were changing the way my world worked:

In other words, ideas can only be transmitted by being re-thought.
Ch 3, #10

I have to re-think the idea from the ground up in order for it to really be received? I’ve been doing this my whole life, and it never occurred to me to state it formally like this, but in doing so, I now notice when I am not doing it, and thereby not following the idea.

A new lesson or fresh subject never reveals all its truth on a first study of it… so one must return again and again to a lesson if he would see all there is in it … The practiced mind finds truths which the first study did not reveal.
Ch 8, #6-7

Wait,.. he’s totally right. When I read something the second time I gain new insights. Wait, you mean that’s how my mind works? That I’m not just dumb, but that’s how the mind naturally forms an understanding of things? So I’m not supposed to understand everything the first time? This actually makes me want to… dare I say.. go over the material again (I’m not gonna say the bad word –> st*dy).

When one climbs a mountain, from each successive opening and outlook the eye visits again the same landscape, but the observer’s position is always changed. The features of the landscape are seen in different perspective, and each successive view is larger, more comprehensive and more complete than its predecessor
Ch 8, # 10

You’re totally right John Milton Gregory. You’re totally right… I need to return again and again, climbing different mountains and looking at the same material from different angles in order to get a better view.

He goes on to talk about how to inspire students to be interested, the different types of attention (compelled or “forced” which never works, and attracted or “interested” which works), how to inspire students and gain their attracted attention, how to communicate clearly, and reams of other unbelievable stuff for 135 pages.

Then he started saying stuff that was just knocking it out of the park:

that is not true learning which merely memorizes and repeats the teacher’s words and ideas
Ch 7, #4

yes! this is what I have been saying! it does no good to merely memorize.

The true stimulant of the human mind is a question … questioning is not, therefore, merely one of the modes of teaching, it is the whole of teaching.
Ch 6, #29

you’re killin it!! “hold your questions until the end” has to be one of the most awful statements a teacher can make.

The boy forced to study what he does not like feels thoroughly tired in half an hour. Give him now a story which he enjoys, and he will read without a sign of weariness for two or three hours longer, till the tired body rebels, and will not sit still any longer.
Ch 3, #5

oh my goodness!! and how do you make students enjoy what they are learning? Through your own interest in the subject, through showing how they can apply it to their lives, and through a hundred other methods the book describes to make the remote and distance, near and practicable, and thereby interesting to the disinterested student.

Not a few teachers nearly kill the power of attention in their pupils by neglecting to call it out and give it vigorous exercise. They drone on through dull hours and dreary routine, reading commonplace questions from the books, without a single fresh inquiry or startling and interesting statement.
Ch 3, Violations and Mistakes, #4

I wanted to cry when I read that last one. It’s like everything I’ve ever suffered through and called wrong in a classroom was finally being called wrong by someone in charge. Not only that, but the reasons why where being provided. I finally realized I was probably mostly justified about the way I’ve felt in class all these years.

He explains how the more knowledge you gain, the more that knowledge empowers you to gain additional knowledge. In other words, knowledge is exponential, it compounds, the more you have, the more you are capable of having. It’s not that one’s mind has a limited “capacity” and can be “full”. No, through the proper methods of attaching thoughts to previous thoughts, as the known casts its light onto the unknown, as the material is re-seen and mastered, it becomes readily usable and useful.

John Milton Gregory, thank you for writing this book. You have forever altered the way I learn, so that I may learn more and with greater understanding. If I am ever a teacher, I will do my best to never be like the teachers I’ve suffered through. God bless you.

Get the book from Amazon now, and stop wasting time.

No related posts.

• “Restore the Faith of the Early Church”
• “Restore the Truth of the Early Church”

I wonder what he’ll do when he starts reading the writings of the Early Church Fathers and finds out all of the first Christians were Catholic, believed then what the Catholic Church believes today, and that all of his beliefs were unheard of in all of Christendom before Ahn Sahng-Hong died in 1985? My guess is, he’ll have to leave the WMSCOG and become Catholic, or turn his back on the history of Christianity.

I really like when people start asking questions like:

• What did the first Christians believe?
• Who put the Bible together?
• How do we know what books belong in the Bible?

Almost every Protestant conversion story begins this way. May God help all of those seeking truth.

No related posts.

648. Two errors: 1. To take everything literally. 2. To take everything spiritually.

In other words, there are two aspects to life, the physical and the spiritual.

Atheists often claim that there is “little or no proof for the existence of God”. If you press them on this though, what they really mean to say by proof here is “scientific evidence”. This is usually followed by accolades for science that is “measurable, testable, repeatable.” If you press them on what qualifies as “measurable, testable, repeatable”, the answer you get is the physical sciences (math, physics, chemistry, etc).

What the Atheist means to say is “there is little or no proof [from the physical sciences] for the existence of God”, as if God is a math equation at the bottom of a page, or a substance in a beaker.

Are the physical sciences the only valid sciences for finding God? I would submit to you that finding a natural proof for the supernatural may be difficult. In other words, the Atheist may be dismissing God on unfit criteria.

Let’s illustrate this (no pun intended) with an example of a painter and a painting.

Does a painter exist inside their painting? A sculptor in their sculpture? Certainly not. How ridiculous if the painting should exclaim “I have no painter, for I am unable to find him here amid my brushstrokes”.

If God created the universe (as the Theist posits), then God existed before and independently of the universe–God is greater than the universe. How can one expect to measure the supernatural using only natural means? I would suggest that this is unfit criteria for ascertaining the existence of God.

The physical sciences are bound by the physical world. So why should God, who existed before the universe only be discernible in a physical science proof which is only capable of measuring the physical world inside of the universe?

How curious to require natural proof of the supernatural.

The reader may here object “but, if there be no proof necessary for the supernatural, one may be obliged to believe in all sorts of nonsense”. Careful though, we did not say there was no proof, only that mathematics or physics or chemistry may not be the only means of finding God. While we can arrive at faith in God through the study of the natural world, we may also arrive at faith through reason, which we will demonstrate.

It may help for a moment to step back and realize that there are things in this world which exist without any natural proof, which the atheist them self believes in. Namely things like:

• love
• justice
• hope
• mercy

Would you say justice does not exist, or do you know when it’s been done? Human beings intuitively understand justice, yet there is no scientific proof for its existence.

We could say the same about love, or hope.

How strange then to withhold belief in the supernatural God by saying there is no proof from the physical sciences, yet allow belief in the supernatural concepts of love or hope or justice without those same proofs. If even things in this world can not be relegated to the physical sciences alone, then how much more so God?

The reader may here object “again, why must it be God, and not anything else?” This is a fair question, and the answer is rooted in reason. Let us start with Aquinas and proceed to Christ in order to answer this question.

St. Thomas Aquinas wrote five logical proofs for the existence of God.

One of the most interesting is composed of the following logic:

1. Everything that exists, exists because of something that came before it.
2. This can not go backwards ad infinitum.
3. Therefore, there must be some “uncaused first cause” which was the beginning. This we call God.

This is a beautiful logic proof for God naming Him as the “uncaused first cause”.

The observant reader will note here that while this may point to God in a general way, it does not prove the God of the Christians. To do that, we need our greatest proof for the existence of God–Jesus Christ.

God exists because Jesus Christ said He exists. To disprove God, the atheist must disprove Christ’s divinity. Doing that isn’t going to happen because of the overwhelming evidence in favor of it. Most people are rather alarmed to learn just how strong the evidence is for Christ’s Resurrection. For further reading on this topic I would recommend the following books:

So you won’t accept logic proofs, or the Bible. Then perhaps people getting out of their wheelchairs at Lourdes? Skip to 5:30. This one won’t embed, so watch it on YouTube here.

Images credit of Wiki Commons

No related posts.

Ahn Sahng Hong died on February 25, 1985.

Romans 6:9 says:

9
We know that Christ, raised from the dead, dies no more; death no longer has power over him.

Romans 6:9 says “Christ dies no more”, but Ahn Sahng Hong died. Therefore, Ahn Sahng Hong was not Jesus Christ.

Here’s a YouTube video for you and your loved ones:

Related posts:

1. That Ahn Sahng-Hong Was a False Messiah The WMSCOG believes that a Korean man named Ahn Sahng-Hong (1948-1985) was the Second Coming of Jesus Christ. However, Ahn...
2. Ahn Sahng-Hong Never Claimed to be Christ Perhaps the most startling proof against the claims of the WMSCOG is that Ahn Sahng-Hong never claimed to be Jesus...
3. Ahn Sahng-Hong Had the Wrong Name The WMSCOG erroneously believes that a man named Ahn Sahng-Hong was Jesus Christ, even though their Bibles in Acts 4:12...

Jesus Christ already has a body. He doesn’t need another one.

No related posts.