Basic Christianity Documentary (WATCH BELOW)

In an effort to promote Dr. Stan Walters's book, Basic Christianity: Facts-Evidences-Reasons, (available here: http://www.stanwilliams.com/NINEVEHSCROSSING/BCInfo.php) I ventured into a video recording of me presenting Dr. Walters's Lecture 4: Getting Information About God.  (I mean our initials are the same "SDW" as are our first two names, Stanley David...) Now, I say that with a bit of sarcasm and deep respect for my mentor, Dr. Walters.  I do wish he was still on the lecture circuit, because his stage presence was very engaging, as the writer of the book's Foreword, Dwight Gregory so well articulates in his Foreword and in the video testimonial on the book's website. So, because I am not the assured, confident, and posed Walters, I have supplemented his words (from the edited book) with lots of graphics and pictures.

Now, that is not really why I added the images and animation. I did such to make Walters's words accessible to the huge audience of young people who don't read so well, or who would have trouble following the logic without visual support. A lot has changed in communication media in our culture since these lectures were last presented by Master Walters in 1968.  I guess, I also added all the visuals and music because when he delivered these, as good as he was, I was a very poor student. It still is hard, although not as much, to listen to a sophisticated talk and understand much of what is being said. I prefer books which allow me without cost, except for time, to re-read a sentence or paragraph many times in order to grasp its meaning. Videos are good too because I can play a section over and over until I get the joke—thick I am.

Also, the meaning behind Dr. Walters' talks are significant in the realm of Christian apologetics. They were very helpful to me, and I want them to be helpful to others.  So, I hope you enjoy the video documentary of his talk (presented by me with the help of Final Cut Pro and a bunch of technology) and remember, you can play a section over and over until it puts you to sleep.

I doubt that I will do more than this one lecture. It is taking a long time, and it's not earning my any money to pay for the software updates. (smile)

Blessings,

Stanley D. Williams

Matthew Kelly - Insipid, Shallow Thinking for Catholics

I am involved in Christian and Catholic apologetics. I write and read a lot. Matthew Kelly's The Biggest Lie in the History of Christianity" was given out to parishioners at the two parishes our family attends. 

The book is lauded as a great tool of evangelism. I read it. But I found it very shallow and insipid in its thinking. Catholics can do much better than read this if they want to be better prepared to engage the culture, witness for Christ, and better their lives.

Consider these few points.

(1) The Biggest Lie... unlike most Catholic texts has no citations, outside references, footnotes, nor is there a bibliography. Ex. He quotes Keats, but no citation. Only one Scripture is cited: 1 Thess. 4:3. 

(2) In rebutting the historic lies about Christianity, The Biggest Lie... provides few if any facts that can be tracked down and checked out. But Kelly offers plenty of opinion. Ex. "#1 Jesus Didn't Exist" (p 22), Kelly provides not one piece of evidence that Jesus did exist. But he provides 7 claims that Christ didn't, and offers 6 of his own unsubstantiated opinions, demeaning his detractors by calling them "disingenuous" or liars. Matthew, name calling is not evidence.

(3) If there's a practical theme to the book it's to create Holy Moments by being kind to others. By other names this is a repeat of past fads a.k.a. "random acts of kindness" and "pay it forward" which the secular culture practices to a great extent. Kelly seems to think such Holy Moments are unique to Christians and the world will sit up and take notice. He's wrong. Further, he provides no advice on how to use Holy Moments to confront cultural issues like abortion, sexualization, gender politics or the ever-present sex scandal in the Church. He ignores these issues totally. Thus, the book is very shallow. 

(4) He spends time talking about giving 100% of our lives to Christ, but the thinking here is nothing more than a bottle of bromides. Platitudes with no practical interpretation. EX: If I give my 100% to Christ how do I have anything left for my wife, job, or kids?  Now there's a clear answer to that, in that we are Christ in our interaction with our wife, job and kids...but Kelly doesn't say that. He just piles on the adages.

(5) On pages 94-95 he writes of the power that ONE individual has to change the world and gives as an example: "had another thousand or ten thousand jointed" the resistance against Hitler "they would have changed the course of history." Think about that logic. ONE person can change Hitler's attack on humanity, but maybe 1,000 or 10,000 more would be needed. At the same time, he posits this Kelly is ignorant of the tens of MILLIONS that died to stop Hitler and the Axis powers and it took years. The logic is over simplified and baffling.

(6) On pages 109-112 Kelly gives one-line bios to over 30 of the greatest achieving people to grace humanity, from Bill Gates to Grandma Moses, listing the great things they did and the age when they did them...and he points out that these special people were "called of God". Then he follows this up by reminding the reader (in big type) "you and I—are capable of incredible things." Why does he say we don't do such things? He does not remind the reader that he said that the former were called of God, or that they worked hard all their lives and prepared for their great opportunities. No, he says it's because we're busy with the "hustle and bustle of life" as if the famous folks weren't busy with such things. "Or we think we are not among the special people and we are not capable of great things."  Duh! Well, most of us are not "called of God" in a special way like Joan of Arc, nor are we as talented or as disciplined as Jack Nicklaus, or driven like Paul McCartney for fame, etc. But never mind that logic. Kelly says, "We are wrong. We are capable of great things." And then by the force of his words he reminds us that Holy Moments (Random Acts of Kindness) are equivalent to the works of Mozart and Michelangelo. One thing for sure, Matthew Kelly will never be lauded for his literature or thinking. 

(7) Many places the proofs he provides to back up his opinion is simply to state his position again in more emphatic words. On pages 59-60 he goes on a rant about the need of Christian unity to save the Church and the world. He never gives a tactical or strategic plan for such unity other than his Holy Moments motif. And then to prove his point he says, "And hear me when I say this: The future of Christianity around the world depends on this unity. It's no longer just a nice idea...." etc.  Kelly's best evidence for his opinion is the sight of his own words in print... or the sound of his voice on his videos. What more do we need? 

There are many other logical problems with this book. In short, if Catholics read this they will learn that simply repeating ideological chants ("But Matthew Kelly said...") and paying it forward with random acts of kindness will unite the church and change the culture.

In the meantime, it would be great if Kelly would steer clear of the bromides and platitudes write a practical book on confronting evil. 

The Causes of Gun Violence in Schools

The logical causes of gun violence in schools... 

• Legalization of abortion.
• Removal of Judea-Christian moral instruction from schools (Prayer and Bible Study)
• Marginalization of Judea-Christian faith in homes 
• The unrestricted interpretation of the First Amendment that allows violence to be promoted by the entertainment industry to children. 
• Self-centered culture that celebrates victimhood and individual rights above the common good.

How legalizing abortion leads to school killings.

If we each out children that the lives of babies in the womb are unimportant then we teach our children that their lives and the lives of their peers are unimportant. To the national moral psyche, if killing a fetus is a moral right, then killing children must also be a moral right. 

How removing Judea-Christian moral instruction from homes and schools leads to school killings.

We teach children that civil law can be made and repealed at will by politicians. Therefore, civil laws are not universally truth.  But Judea-Christian moral laws are not subject to human interdiction and hold for all times and all places. Man has no control over God's judgement in this life or the next. Evil exists in the mind before it takes physical form, and it tries to persuade us that there are no such eternal and universal moral laws. So, killing becomes easy for there will be no judgement. But what is good and true teaches us there are eternal consequences to our thoughts and actions that are beyond civil laws.

Removing the Ten Commandments from schools and public places teaches children that there is no universal consequence to breaking the Ten Commandments. 

Removing prayer and Bible study from schools reminds us that there is no consequence beyond civil law and this life. 

The Logical Case for Catholicism

Just released - Webinar on Logic and Catholicism.

Available on Blueray - DVD - Stream - Download

(click here)

I just updated a very good webinar that provides tremendous evidence for the logical basis for Catholicism. It's how faith cannot exist without reason. Richly illustrated with 75 slides and six videos, the seven part series (now divided into six downloadable videos) is designed for use by parishes, religious, education departments, homeschool parents and individuals who want to strengthen their Catholic faith and  improve their ability to defend it. Special attention is paid to faulty arguments from Protestants.

Watch the trailer below for a good sense of what the webinar is like.

The Logical Case for Catholicism

A new on-line presentation suitable for RCIA, Catholic Studies and Homeschooling (ages 14 and up) is now available. Go to: https://vimeo.com/ondemand/logicalcasecatholicism. Play the trailer below. A content outline follows.



Designed for delivery in parishes, this is a 7-Part screencast course on how Catholicism (and Christianity) is validated by Logic and Natural Law. Contains 75 graphic slides and 6 videos. Total Length about 2 hr. 47 min. [Program: Copyright © 2016, Stanley D. Williams. All Rights Reserved.]

CONTENT OUTLINE

Introduction Starts: 00:00 (Length: 11 min)
1. LOGIC TERMS (Define Terms) Starts: 10:45 (Length 27 min)

• Logos
• Argument
• Opinion
• Validity
• Fallacy

2. NATURAL LAW (Logic’s Best Friend) Starts: 37:16 (Length 11 min)

• Physical
• Psychological

3. NATURAL LAW (Logical Short Cuts) Starts: 48:38 (Length 25 min)

• Biblical Precepts
• Catholic Precepts
• Social Research

4.LAW AND ORDER (Logic’s Best Evidence) Starts: 1:13:40 (Length 32 min)

• Logical Order
• Human Genome
• Free Will

5. LOGICAL CONTRADICTIONS (Logic’s Demise Pt 1) Starts: 1:45:33 (Length 21 min)

• Contradiction vs. Paradox
• The Dominant Contradiction

6. TWO LOGICAL FALLACIES (Logic’s Demise Pt 2) Starts: 2:06:34 (Length 14 min)

• Equivocation
• Difvocation

7. FOUR ESSENTIALS OF A GOOD ARGUMENT (Logic’s Solution) Starts: 2:20:24 (Length 27 min)

• Relevancy
• Acceptability
• Sufficient
• Rebuttal Proof

I Can't Believe in a God that Sends People to Hell

Here's another reason "atheism" is an irrational choice of the will.

Twice today I have encountered so called "atheists" who make the claim found in this blog's title. By itself it's proof that atheists hold to a belief system that requires more (blind) faith that what they decry.

Claiming a disbelief in a God that sends people to hell, assumes several things:

a. That God sends people to hell.

b. That God has the power to send people to hell.

c. That there's such a place as hell, to begin with.

d. That the person's going to hell have no say in the matter and are forced by said God to go to hell.


I don't know about you, but reason (that concept associated with logic) tells me:

1. If you can't believe in a God that sends people to hell, you must believe in a  God that sends people to heaven.

And of course, that begs the question. Is the claimed disbelief because he's sending everyone to hell, or just a few? And if just a few, why is that?

2. If an entity exists that has the power to send people to hell, then what name should we assign to that entity who has so much power over human beings? "He Overtly Condemns?" Can we shorten that to HOC? Can we then believe in HOC?

3. If there's a place called "hell," which is commonly referred to as a place of punishment, doesn't that assume there's a place called "not-hell" that might be a place of reward?

4. Is it possible that the entity that is claimed to be sending people to hell (that some refuse to believe in) loves them so much he allows them to go against his will and desire, and reject him, hate him, not believe in him...and consequently choose hell instead of that other place? Perhaps He (whoever HE is) isn't sending anyone to hell. Maybe we get to CHOOSE. Now, that's  unconditional love. If you want to walk off a cliff and fall to your death, I love you so much that I won't stop you...unless you ask me to stop you. But to do that you have to, ah believe that I can. Right?

Divine Opinion Movement

I wish someone with more influence than I would declare an intellectual war on the "Divine Opinion Movement." This is the group that can say idiot things and claim they're rationale. Example:  Along comes the LGBT claiming the Salvation Army is bigoted (therefore don't give to the needy) because of its "selective interpretation of the Bible" (regarding marriage) when it's the LGBT that selectively interprets the Bible and is bigoted toward Christians of good will. I want to ignore these people but wish the news media would ignore them first. 

Then there's a comment by Sagalla1 on my YouTube channel regarding the 8-min short about Alex Jones, the Pentecostal minister who came into the Catholic Church with 55 of his former church members. The comment is this: "Pentacostal (sic) Methodists in the Catholic Church? What's next, Hindus????" 

People like this commenter never cease to amaze me. Sagalla1 is evidently a fan of Charlie Sheen, who froths outrageous thoughts about 9/11 being a conspiracy and then uses his craziness as the reason someone should take him serioius. Huh!? 

This is the real downside of public media and free speech. Anyone can say anything and the world takes notice, like I'm doing now. The problem is, there's so much out there, spurious comments like this one will never stop it. I think the only solution is to reintroduce the study of logic and fallacies back into Jr. High and High School and make them mandatory for 4 years. Then, maybe, in a generation sanity might return to "civilization" ... or maybe we could license journalists and bloggers to pass a logic and fallacy test... let's include government officials and advertisers while we're at it.  There is definitely a downside to "free speech" when the Divine Opinion Movement matters.

 

Attention So Called "Atheists"

As I've posted before, I find "atheism" an irrational concept, especially since those that wear it's badge  claim  they do so because of "reason."

A few days ago on my Moral Premise blog I wrote about Jessica Hagy's INDEXED project, where she uses index cards to symbolize mathematical concepts with Venn Diagrams and Graphs. Occasionally she produces a Venn diagram or graph that touches eloquently on the conflict of values that we use in creating stories, which is what the Moral Premise book is all about. One of her examples is here:

If you search through Ms. Hagy's work on INDEXED, you'll find some diagrams that suggest her religious faith in God or His benevolence has passed through a serious trial and has not been properly explained or redeemed. She's confused about some things. Mathematics is a wonderful discipline, but it still does not answer (as science does not) the "why" of the human condition.   As I posted in the footnote to my other posting:

I call all atheists "wannabes" because logically they have no rational basis for declaring there is no God. To do so, they would have to be omniscient... an attribute assigned to the essence that knows all things perfectly without error or contradiction. You can't claim something does not exist when your knowledge of the universe and reality is microscopically small. I'll accept agnostic, but not declarations. Every human discipline offers only a spec of knowledge of what is potentially possible. Science and theology are no exceptions to this. Some of what was known as universal truth by science 100 years ago, today is bunk... and the thousands of Protestant Christian faiths that all disagree with each other suggests a similar uneasiness. I'm Catholic for a host of reasons, not the least of which the Church does not claim to have all the answers. It has always embraced mystery as a tenet. That there is mystery in the universe/reality,  is what makes stories, in part, work. We are bounded by time and space. Stories working through our imagination allows us to see reality from a perspective that transcends space and time. 

 I wrote that on May 20, and sent the link to Ms. Hagy. Today, May 25, she posted this:

Bless her seeking soul.