Last night I was standing in the bathroom filling the bath for Joseph. I was also looking at my game of words with friends with Daniel. I got a bit distracted and filled the bath up really high. When I turned the taps off, he objected a bit. He quite liked the water running in and really enjoyed his deep deep bath.
Wednesday, July 27, 2011
Our laundry space is much smaller than this one but I like the set up of the washing machine, trough and cupboards. We could do it along the wall that the bath is in at the moment. I think I want some softer colours for the paint but love the wood colour for the cupboards. Steve was a plumber before he was a teacher so he knows how to do all the plumbing and put the hose from the washing machine to the trough.
Tuesday, July 26, 2011
Monday, July 25, 2011
Sunday, July 24, 2011
Saturday, July 23, 2011
If I am merely the product of matter and at the mercy of material determinism,why should I subject myself to anyone else’s moral convictions? If, on the otherhand, I am fashioned by God for his purpose, then I need to know him and know that purpose for which I have been made, for out of that purpose is born my sense of right and wrong. There are two worlds represented by these options.
The atheist lives in tension. He says one thing and knows in his heart of hearts that another is true. The atheist ethics professor teaches ethical relativism, mocks Christianity with its moral absolutes, and explains to his class that right and wrong, as objective moral standards, do not exist. But then he absolutely demands that you not cheat on his test on ethical relativism. If you do cheat, he immediately forgets that he’s an atheist and begins speaking like a Christian, insisting that cheating is wrong and that you should know that.
We cannot teach people that they are nothing but material things that have evolved out of the slime and then try to also teach them that there is moral law they need to abide by. They are too smart to not see the implications of the atheism they’re taught. So they reason this world is a struggle for existence, and if cheating on a few tests will help me to get ahead and get the good job and earn the good money, then why not?
There is no foundation for morality apart from God. If naturalists really begin to live in a manner consistent with their worldview, their moral lives would implode.
Taken from “The Godless Delusion” by Patrick Madrid and Kenneth Hensley.
Friday, July 22, 2011
Thursday, July 21, 2011
Wednesday, July 20, 2011
Tuesday, July 19, 2011
Meet Sue from Not enough Butter.
Monday, July 18, 2011
Sunday, July 17, 2011
Some atheists argue that we don’t need to believe in God in order to have morality. We can determine what is right and wrong by using reason alone.
Atheist Kai Nielsen argues that it doesn’t take God’s existence for us to figure out what is just and fair in a given situation. Do we really need God in order to know that we ought to keep our promises, or tell the truth, or pay our debts, or allow an elderly woman to take our seat on the bus? If we want to be treated with respect and dignity, isn’t it only reasonable that we should treat others with respect and dignity? It doesn’t take the existence of God for us to figure out how we ought to conduct ourselves morally.
Both Kai Nielsen and Immanuel Kant are right when they suggest that we can come to know what is right and what is wrong by the use of reason alone. After all, the moral law exists and is reasonable and God has written his moral law on our hearts and given us reason so that we might understand the world he has created. But if there is no God, no moral law, and if nothing exists but material substances as atheists like Nielsen suggest, why should a notion like ‘reason’ bond us to any particular type of conduct? If there is no moral truth to be discovered and if I have to simply choose the moral point of view because that type of life is what I find worthwhile for myself, then the decision is arbitrary, rationally speaking. The moral difference between Mother Teresa and Hitler is roughly the same as the difference between whether I want to be a trumpet player of a baseball player.
Because the naturalist worldview cannot support the real existence of right and wrong, any standard of morality the atheist comes up with is going to be arbitrary. It will simply be his idea of a good way to have some resemblance of morality in an immoral, impersonal, meaningless universe. Often it will also be inconsistent and even contradictory to the naturalist worldview. To see this, all one has to do is ask the question: How exactly does this ethical standard arise naturally from an infinite sea of ever changing material substances?
Taken from "The Godless Delusion" by Patrick Madrid and Kenneth Hensley.
Saturday, July 16, 2011
Friday, July 15, 2011
Thursday, July 14, 2011
Thanks so much to Sherry from Chocolate for your brain for hosting Small Success each week.
Wednesday, July 13, 2011
Tuesday, July 12, 2011
Monday, July 11, 2011
Sunday, July 10, 2011
Saturday, July 09, 2011
Atheists will argue that there does not need to be a God given moral law, but that we can choose to do anything so long as we are not hurting someone.
For example, as long as sexual activity is between consenting adults, you should be free to do whatever you like, with whomever you like, in whatever combinations you like, and in whatever circumstances you like in or out of marriage as long as no one is hurt by it. ‘Hurt’ is usually narrowly defined in terms of sexually transmitted diseases or pregnancy.
If human beings are nothing but highly evolved animals, as atheists claim, then it could be argued that no harm is done when people behave like animals. A hedonistic lifestyle may adequately provide for what you want out of life. Do whatever your desires and appetites and addictions and fetishes compel you to do.
If God exists, and he designed human sexuality to be expressed and find its meaning and fulfillment in the loving commitment of marriage, then unbridled sexual activity would be a destructive activity that attacks human dignity and eventually inflicts profound and lasting emotional, spiritual and physical wounds.
Everyone is hurt by the ‘do no harm’ ethic. Those involved in sexual promiscuity, or in other immoral activities that might be considered entirely private, are hurt because God made them for something so much higher and better. They degrade themselves when they fail to pursue their higher calling. Those who follow their example are hurt, especially the children who assume that this must be a good way to live. Parents who would never have wanted this for their sons or daughters are hurt. Even society itself is hurt as its moral tenor is diminished by such behavior even though its proponents claim they’re not hurting anyone else.
A problem for the naturalist who subscribes to the ‘do no harm’ ethical standard is that it is actually inconsistent with the naturalist worldview. Do naturalists see the ‘do no harm’ standard existing in nature? Is this something the natural world teaches us? Didn’t Darwin claim that, in nature, the strong prey upon the weak and only the fittest survive? Isn’t his how things should be in this strictly material world?
If human beings are merely highly evolved animals, why is it universally understood to be wrong for one human being to steal from, injure, or murder another human being? What is the rational basis to insert the notion of ‘right and wrong’ into an atheist worldview?
The consistent atheist is forced to admit that the ‘do no harm’ standard contradicts the naturalist worldview that embraces Darwin’s evolutionary principle of ‘survival of the fittest’. Natural selection is guaranteed not be being nice to competitors but by overpowering weaker competitors.
From “The Godless Delusion” by Patrick Madrid and Kenneth Hensley.
Friday, July 08, 2011
Thursday, July 07, 2011
Wednesday, July 06, 2011
O my God, I am heartily sorry for having offended you, and I detest all my sins, because of Your just punishments, but most of all because they offend You, my God, who are all-good and deserving of all my love. I firmly resolve, with the help of Your grace, to sin no more and to avoid the near occasion of sin.
Some other prayers I want them to learn are:
through the Immaculate Heart of Mary,
I offer You my prayers, works,
joys and sufferings
of this day for all the intentions
of Your Sacred Heart,
in union with the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass
throughout the world,
in reparation for my sins,
for the intentions of all my relatives and friends,
and in particular
for the intentions of the Holy Father.
Tuesday, July 05, 2011
Monday, July 04, 2011
Sunday, July 03, 2011
On Friday night, Sam had his year 12 formal. I took him down the street on Friday afternoon and bought him a suit. The shop keeper told me he will get married in this suit. Maybe one day. We will see. I may be a bit bias but I think he looks pretty good in this suit.
Saturday, July 02, 2011
Some atheists will argue that there does not have to be an objective moral law rooted in and reflecting the character of God
They claim that we can figure out for ourselves how to make wise, good and ethical decisions. One suggestion would be to ask ourselves the simple question: what will bring the greatest happiness to the greatest number of people? What choice will result in the greatest total amount of happiness?
The major problem with this alternative ethical standard is that there is no way of measuring the greatest total amount of happiness. An atheist will define ‘happiness’ in terms of his naturalist worldview and the values that flow from it. A Christian will define happiness in terms of his theistic worldview and the values that flow from it. For example, an atheist might argue for smaller families on the grounds that each child will have better clothing and toys therefore more happiness. A Catholic might argue for a large family on the grounds that each child will have more love, more sharing and more memories, and therefore more happiness since happiness does not come from having lots of material possessions.
Our worldview determines our values and our ideas of where happiness is to be found. Happiness is not some measurable commodity that can be weighed objectively as a basis for making ethical decisions.
Another serious problem with the ‘happiness’ method of doing ethics is that once the happiness of the individual is subordinate to the happiness of the group, nearly anything can be justified. If what is important in moral reasoning is the ‘total amount of happiness’ then the happiness of the individual becomes secondary. The individual is no longer an end in himself but has become a means to the happiness of the group. Virtually any behavior can be justified on the grounds that it will result in the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest number of people.
Another problem for the naturalist who subscribes to the ‘happiness’ method of doing ethics is that it is actually inconsistent with the naturalist worldview. If there is no God as the naturalist asserts, no moral law and if humans are mere products of natural processes, accidents of chance and time; then why should we care about what results in the greatest total amount of happiness? Why should we choose to allow this arbitrary standard to bind us in our freedom? Why shouldn’t we do what we want? Why shouldn’t we pick our own arbitrary standard, such as “right will be whatever makes me happy”?
From “The Godless Delusion” by Patrick Madrid and Kenneth Hensley.