Featured Post

SEX IS DEATH [Part 95: Sexual perversion - the sin that keeps on taking and taking and taking...ad nauseam...ad infinitum]

I came to Carthage, where I found myself in the midst of a hissing cauldron of lusts. I had not yet fallen in love, but I was in love ...


"Let no freedom be allowed to novelty, because it is not fitting that any addition should be made to antiquity. Let not the clear faith and belief of our forefathers be fouled by any muddy admixture." -- Pope Sixtus III

Wednesday, March 29, 2017

Dr. Walter Williams is a real mensch...

...and government is legalized theft. You should spend a few days and read all of his columns at the link below. You might just become a real mensch yourself and you will definitely learn how the world really is and your delusions will disappear.

Walter Williams Archives - Jewish World Review

02/22/17: There's Nothing Free

It was Nobel laureate economist Milton Friedman who made famous the adage, "There's no such thing as a free lunch." Professor Friedman could have added that there is a difference between something's being free and something's having a zero price. For example, people say that there's free public education and there are free libraries, but public education and libraries cost money. Proof that they have costs is the fact that somebody has to have less of something by giving up tax money so that schools and libraries can be produced and operated. A much more accurate statement is that we have zero-price public education and libraries.

Costs can be concealed but not eliminated. If people ignore costs and look only to benefits, they will do darn near anything, because everything has a benefit. Politicians love the fact that costs can easily be concealed. The call for import restrictions, in the name of saving jobs, is politically popular in some quarters. But few talk about the costs. We know there are costs because nothing is free.

Let's start with a hypothetical example of tariff costs. Suppose a U.S. clothing manufacturer wants to sell a suit for $200. He is prevented from doing so because customers can purchase a nearly identical suit produced by a foreign manufacturer for $150. But suppose the clothing manufacturer can get Congress to impose a $60 tariff on foreign suits in the name of leveling the playing field and fair trade. What happens to his chances of being able to sell his suit for $200? If you answered that his chances increase, go to the head of the class. Next question is: Who bears the burden of the tariff? If you answered that it's customers who must pay $50 more for a suit, you're right again.

In his 2012 State of the Union address, President Barack Obama boasted that "over 1,000 Americans are working today because we stopped a surge in Chinese tires." According to a study done by the Peterson Institute for International Economics (http://tinyurl.com/jdtbktu), those trade restrictions forced Americans to pay $1.1 billion in higher prices for tires. So though 1,200 jobs were saved in the U.S. tire industry, the cost per job saved was at least $900,000 in that year. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the average annual salary of tire builders in 2011 was $40,070.

Here's a question for those of us who support trade restrictions in the name of saving jobs: In whose pockets did most of the $1.1 billion that Americans paid in higher prices go? It surely did not reach tire workers in the form of higher wages. According to the Peterson Institute study, "most of the money extracted by protection from household budgets goes to corporate coffers, at home or abroad, not paychecks of American workers. In the case of tire protection, our estimates indicate that fewer than 5 percent of the consumer costs per job saved reached the pockets of American workers." There is another side to this. When households have to pay higher prices for tires, they have less money to spend on other items — such as food, clothing and entertainment — thereby reducing employment in those industries.

Some people point out that other countries, such as Japan, impose heavy tariffs on American products. Indeed, Tokyo levies a 490 percent tariff on rice imports to allow Japanese rice growers to gain higher income by charging Japanese consumers four times the world price for rice. Therefore, some suggest that Congress should even the playing field by imposing stiff tariffs on Japanese imports to the U.S. Such an argument differs little from one that says that because the Japanese government screws its citizens, the U.S. government should retaliate by screwing its own citizens. Putting the issue in another context: If you and I are at sea in a rowboat and I commit the foolish act of shooting a hole in my end of the boat, would it be intelligent for you to retaliate by shooting a hole in your end of the boat?

TheChurchMilitant: Sometimes anti-social, but always anti-fascist since 2005.

Dumbass heretics are always wrong.

Some prods love the Orange Messiahdent. Some prods hate it. It figures that the haters here in Amishland hate it for the one thing about which it continues to make the correct noises: immigration. Of course, it does not really matter because Orange Clump won't ever do any good unlees it happens by accident while it is busy masturbating.

Trump turns apolitical Mennonites into protesters | McClatchy DC


Mary Beth Martin and Lindsey Martin Corbo each held one side of the large cardboard poster, the mother and her adult daughter eager to deliver a personal if unconventional message to their congressman, Republican Rep. Lloyd Smucker.

“Hey Smucker,” said the sign, written in red, green, and blue marker. “300 years ago our Mennonite family took sanctuary in PA, just like yours did.

“Lancaster values immigrants.”

The anger might have been directed at Smucker, but Martin and Corbo were really there – like 100 others – because of President Donald Trump.

The two women were among a hundred newly engaged activists assembled in Republican-heavy Lancaster County – an area that went to Trump in November by 57 percent – braving toe-freezing temperatures to protest Trump and the lawmaker, who was 200 yards away at a chamber of commerce breakfast.

That Martin and Corbo were protesters was – by their own admission – a remarkable development. Both are members of the Mennonite Church, a religion that encourages its members to stay away from politics just as it asks them to shun the wider culture.

For most of their lives Martin, 57, and her daughter, 30, did just that, occasionally voting for Democrats but rarely paying attention to politics outside the polling booth.

“I’ve never been politically active . . . because we have a really strong belief in separation of church and state,” Martin said. “Mennonites have always felt our allegiance is to Christ, and not to our state.”

But Trump’s presidency, especially his temporary ban on immigration from some Middle Eastern countries, has turned both women – and many other members of this Christian community – into activists.

“For me, with this particular president, it felt like I just can’t be silent,” Martin said.

Anger at Trump – a polarizing figure who retains most of the loyal supporters who made him president in the first place – has spawned what Democrats describe as the largest sustained protest movement since the Vietnam War.

And maybe the most unexpected members of that movement are Mennonites such as Martin and Corbo. Interviews with on-the-ground liberal activists and leaders of Mennonite churches reveal that many in the community have seen Trump’s inauguration as a call to action, in some cases reversing a lifetime of political reclusiveness to oppose the president’s policies.

Two of the four organizers, in fact, of the morning’s protest were Mennonites. Organizations connected to the church have written in opposition to the immigration ban, decrying it as contrary to the church’s values.

Maybe most famously, it was a Mennonite pastor from Harrisonburg, Virginia, who conceived of a sign with the words, “No matter where you are from, we’re glad you’re our neighbor,” written in English, Spanish and Arabic. The signs have become a nationwide phenomenon, sold even on Amazon.

“For Mennonites, a lot of times the standard is you’re supposed to turn the other cheek,” Corbo said. “But it also is not meaning to turn a blind eye, you know?”

Mennonites are perhaps best known for their relationship to their theological cousins, the Amish.

The Amish and Mennonites – who are neither Roman Catholics nor Protestants – belonged to the same religion before splitting centuries ago. Even today, they share many of the same beliefs.

Don't blame the author, kiddies. He knows the overwhelming majority of readers have the minds of twelve year olds...just like the two deluded cows featured in this story.

The Amish, known for refusing modern-day technology, clothes and lifestyles, just take their conviction further than Mennonites, most of whom participate in everyday American life.

“When you speak about the horse and buggy, you’re talking mostly about the Amish,” said Ervin Stutzman, executive director of Mennonite Church USA, a 75,000-member denomination. (Stutzman was born into an Amish community before switching to the Mennonite faith, a conversion he said was common among Mennonites.)

The Amish and Mennonites each share one famous belief: pacifism, or what Stutzman called “non-resistance.” Members of both faiths have been conscientious objectors for centuries, including during World War II and the Vietnam War.

For decades, the Mennonites’ objection to war was the most notable intersection of their community and politics. But that might be changing now as a result of Trump’s executive order on immigration, a policy he reissued Monday after an earlier version was rebuffed by the courts.

Assisting immigrants, especially refugees, is a central tenant of the Mennonite faith. The plight of immigrants and refugees is especially resonant for many Mennonites, who fled from Europe to the New World hundreds of years ago in the face of religious persecution.

“They have baked into their psyche an understanding of what it means to be a refugee population,” said Michael Shank, a professor at New York University who, as a Mennonite himself, has written on the interaction between his community’s faith and politics.

For many members of the community, it’s also a part of everyday life: Lancaster, where Martin and Corbo live, is said to have the highest per capita population of refugees in the country.

“Mennonites believe we should take the words of Jesus seriously and live out his call to love our neighbor as we love ourselves,” said Rachelle Lyndaker Schlabach, director of the Mennonite Central Committee Washington office.

The Mennonite Central Committee has for the last 50 years advocated on behalf of immigrants and refugees to U.S. policy-makers in Congress and the White House. This year, it has issued statements condemning Trump’s actions on everything from his plan to build a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border to his proposal to strip federal funding from so-called “sanctuary cities” for immigrants who are in the U.S. illegally.

Leaders in the community are quick to say that many Mennonites are conservative and many of them likely support Trump and Republicans in Congress. On issues like abortion, the community strongly supports the Republican position opposing it.

Mennonites have also slowly become more politically engaged over the years as many of them have more closely integrated with society, said Stutzman, who has written a book on the subject titled “From Non-Resistance to Justice.”

But Trump might have thrown that conversion into overdrive for some.

“There’s diversity in our church,” Stutzman said. “But on this question of immigrants, the people who have been most involved in actually working with immigration and refugees are the folks who are stirred to action by the Trump administration’s actions.”

‘I cried a lot’

Martin said her family immigrated to Lancaster County from Germany in the mid-1700s. She and her daughter were out of the cold now, drinking coffee as they reminisced about how only a few short months had transformed them from people who had barely paid attention to politics to full-blown activists.

Martin said she always voted in presidential elections, though she noted that her mom voted for the first time in 2008, when she was 83. Corbo said she had voted in presidential elections before, though she also confessed she hadn’t even been aware of the existence of midterm elections until this year.

Brilliant! I think her bonnet may be tied a bit too tight.

Her outlook changed in January, the Saturday morning after Trump first issued his executive order on immigration. The news devastated Corbo.

“I cried. I cried a lot,” Corbo said. “We had guests there. I scared my husband because I was not coherent because I was crying. I just thought it was so incredibly mean, the way we were speaking about people who are in a really terrible situation.”

The indefinite ban on refugees from war-torn Syria affected the two women the most. Martin said she volunteered at Church World Service, a social welfare organization that helps resettle refugees in America.

Lancaster is home to many of the refugees, many of whom the two women know personally.

“We felt like we knew the people he was targeting, and they were good people who were in this terrible crisis at home,” Corbo said.

Her mother added, “People want to sponsor them, and still our government won’t allow it to happen.”

Their anger compelled them to take action. They attended the Women’s March on Washington in January before participating in what Corbo described as “every sort of organization and meeting we could attend.”

Corbo joined the local Democratic Party before deciding even that wasn’t enough: She formed her own group to research and track refugees and immigration groups – a remarkable turn for someone who just months earlier rarely even voted.

Of the 20 women who help her, she said, only two were connected to the Democratic Party before Trump’s inauguration.

“My whole group, we are completely new,” Corbo said. “Every single one of us has no political background.”

She laughed off suggestions that she and her group were paid mercenaries, a charge that Republican congressmen have made after a handful of their public town halls were overrun with protesters.

“To me that doesn’t even register, because I’m at the protests and I’ve seen who’s there, and I’m involved in community groups and I’ve seen who’s there,” Corbo said.

“They know it’s wrong,” she added. “They can come and see who’s at the event. They’re walking straight past us.”

Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/nation-world/national/article137016498.html#storylink=cpy

Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/nation-world/national/article137016498.html#storylink=cpy

Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/nation-world/national/article137016498.html#storylink=cpy

Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/nation-world/national/article137016498.html#storylink=cpy
TheChurchMilitant: Sometimes anti-social, but always anti-fascist since 2005.

There is an infinite number of different kinds of hate in the world...and the same goes for stupid and crazy.

From Haaretz.com:

Israel's cyberattack unit arrests Israeli-American teen for 'hundreds' of bomb threats against Jewish centers ...

A 19-year-old Jewish resident of Israel with both American and Israeli citizenship is suspected of being behind a host of fake bomb threats directed at Jewish institutions and other targets worldwide...

TheChurchMilitant: Sometimes anti-social, but always anti-fascist since 2005.

I didn't know Caesar's Palace had a Geriatric Unit...

Surprise! "I hope I die before I get old" was just a silly line from a rock song.*

Caesars Palace residency for the Who: Travel Weekly

I saw them in Pittsburgh during their second "farewell tour". They should have given up after the first one. I wonder if Pete is going to read excerpts from his book on pedophilia...

* "My Generation" by The Who

People try to put us d-down (Talkin' 'bout my generation)
Just because we get around (Talkin' 'bout my generation)
Things they do look awful c-c-cold (Talkin' 'bout my generation)
I hope I die before I get old (Talkin' 'bout my generation)

This is my generation
This is my generation, baby

Why don't you all f-fade away (Talkin' 'bout my generation)
Don't try to dig what we all s-s-s-say (Talkin' 'bout my generation)
I'm not trying to 'cause a big s-s-sensation (Talkin' 'bout my generation)
I'm just talkin' 'bout my g-g-g-generation (Talkin' 'bout my generation)

My generation
This is my generation, baby

Why don't you all f-fade away (Talkin' 'bout my generation)
And don't try to d-dig what we all s-s-say (Talkin' 'bout my generation)
I'm not trying to 'cause a b-big s-s-sensation (Talkin' 'bout my generation)
I'm just talkin' 'bout my g-g-generation (Talkin' 'bout my generation)

This is my generation
This is my generation, baby
My my my generation

People try to put us d-down (Talkin' 'bout my generation)
Just because we g-g-get around (Talkin' 'bout my generation)
Things they do look awful c-c-cold (Talkin' 'bout my generation)
Yeah, I hope I die before I get old (Talkin' 'bout my generation)

This is my generation
This is my generation, baby
My my my generation

(Talkin' 'bout my generation) [x4]
(Talkin' 'bout my generation) This is my generation [x7]

Written by Peter Townshend • Copyright © T.R.O. Inc.

TheChurchMilitant: Sometimes anti-social, but always anti-fascist since 2005.

How about that? I thought the label "Dumbass TV" was redundant decades ago.

I have always had a thing for Jenna Elfman. I don't know exactly what it is , but I find her incredibly sexy. But this show sounds dreadful enough to keep me from even attempting to watch it.

ABC's new 'Imaginary Mary' best left unseen - PressReader

by Kevin McDonough of United Features Syndicate

Most bad TV shows are predictable, unoriginal and depressingly so. “Man With a Plan” comes to mind. Every so often a show arrives so gloriously strange and dreadful that attention must be paid. “Imaginary Mary” (8:30 p.m., ABC, TV-PG) is that kind of show.

“Imaginary” takes a “cute” idea well beyond the realm of creepy to the borders of disturbing without ever becoming funny. Jenna Elfman (“Dharma & Greg”) stars as Alice, a feisty PR executive who convinces herself that she doesn’t need men until she meets Ben (Stephen Schneider), a strenuously nice guy in the Bob Saget (“Full House”) mold.

In a normal bad comedy, Alice would awkwardly settle into domesticity with eager-to-please Ben and his children, Andy (Nicholas Coombe), a gawky adolescent; Dora (Matreya Scarrwener), a smug, judgmental teen; and Bunny (Erica Tremblay), a child filled with unanswerable questions about life and, more often, death.

But this show has something extra, and that is Mary, a CGI depiction of Alice’s childhood imaginary friend, a noseless, fluffy, doll-like creature voiced by Rachel Dratch. In an introduction, we learn that Mary emerged during the painful divorce of Alice’s parents and that Mary helped the sad child assert herself in times of pain.

Mary takes credit for Alice’s business success and fierce independence, but she also feels threatened when Alice becomes happily engaged with other people. In a telling moment, Mary vanished the first time Alice had sex.

So, in short, Mary is a manifestation of dangerous and self-destructive emotional impulses, a haunting presence threatened by Alice’s adjustment to adulthood.

Following a tradition as old as “Harvey,” “Topper” and CBS’ stillborn “Angel From Hell,” “Mary” also reflects the success of two “Ted” movies and is a tad raunchy. Mary may be threatened by Alice’s physical intimacy with Ben, but she also wants to watch. Call me old-fashioned (or well-adjusted), but I never want to watch “Imaginary Mary” again.

TheChurchMilitant: Sometimes anti-social, but always anti-fascist since 2005.

Tuesday, March 28, 2017

Where's Quincy when we need him? [Holy crap, I'm getting old. I should have typed "William Petersen".]

From the Old Gray Whore:

Who Killed the Iceman? Clues Emerge in a Very Cold Case

March 26, 2017

BOLZANO, Italy — When the head of a small Italian museum called Detective Inspector Alexander Horn of the Munich Police, she asked him if he investigated cold cases.
Yes I do,” Inspector Horn said, recalling their conversation.
Well, I have the coldest case of all for you,” said Angelika Fleckinger, director of the South Tyrol Museum of Archaeology, in Bolzano, Italy.
The unknown victim, nicknamed Ötzi, has literally been in cold storage in her museum for a quarter-century. Often called the Iceman, he is the world’s most perfectly preserved mummy, a Copper Age fellow who had been frozen inside a glacier along the northern Italian border with Austria until warming global temperatures melted the ice and two hikers discovered him in 1991.
The cause of death remained uncertain until 10 years later, when an X-ray of the mummy pointed to foul play in the form of a flint arrowhead embedded in his back, just under his shoulder. But now, armed with a wealth of new scientific information that researchers have compiled, Inspector Horn has managed to piece together a remarkably detailed picture of what befell the Iceman on that fateful day around 3300 B.C., near the crest of the Ötztal Alps.
When I was first contacted with the idea, I thought it was too difficult, too much time has passed,” said Inspector Horn, a noted profiler. “But actually he’s in better condition than recent homicide victims I’ve worked on who have been found out in the open.”
The mummy on display at the museum. There are a few mummies in the world as old, but none so well preserved.
There are a few mummies in the world as old as Ötzi, but none so well preserved. Most were ritually prepared, which usually meant removal of internal organs, preservation with chemicals or exposure to destructive desert conditions.
The glacier not only froze Ötzi where he had died, but the high humidity of the ice also kept his organs and skin largely intact. “Imagine, we know the stomach contents of a person 5,000 years ago,” Inspector Horn said. “In a lot of cases we are not able to do that even now.”
Those contents, as it turned out, were critical in determining with surprising precision what happened to Ötzi and even helped shed light on the possible motive of his killer.
The more scientists learn, the more recognizable the Iceman becomes. He was 5 feet 5 inches tall (about average height for his time), weighed 110 pounds, had brown eyes and shoulder-length, dark brown hair, and a size 7½ foot. He was about 45, give or take six years, respectably old for the late Neolithic age — but still in his prime.
Ötzi had the physique of a man who did a lot of strenuous walking but little upper-body work; there was hardly any fat on his body. He had all of his teeth, and between his two upper front teeth was a 3-millimeter gap, an inherited condition known as diastema, which Madonna and Elton John also have.
When viewed through the window of the museum’s freezer, where he is kept now, his hands not only appear unusually small, but they also show little sign of hard use, suggesting that Ötzi was no manual laborer.
Every modern murder investigation relies heavily on forensic science, but in Ötzi’s case, the techniques have been particularly high tech, involving exotic specialties like archaeobotany and paleometallurgy.
From examining traces of pollen in his digestive tract, scientists were able to place the date of Ötzi’s death at sometime in late spring or early summer. In his last two days, they found, he consumed three distinct meals and walked from an elevation of about 6,500 feet, down to the valley floor and then up into the mountains again, where he was found at the crime site, 10,500 feet up.
On his body was one prominent wound, other than the one from the arrowhead: a deep cut in his right hand between the thumb and forefinger, down to the bone and potentially disabling. By the degree of healing seen on the wound, it was one to two days old.
From this, Inspector Horn surmises that Ötzi may have come down to his village and become embroiled in a violent altercation. “It was a very active defensive wound, and interesting in the context that no other injuries are found on the body, no major bruises or stab wounds, so probably he was the winner of that fight, even possibly he killed the person who tried to attack him,” he said.
The area where the Iceman was from. The crime scene was in the mountains, 10,500 feet up.
Then he left, fully provisioned with food, the embers of a fire preserved in maple leaf wrappings inside a birch-bark cylinder, and quite a lot of other equipment, most of it probably carried in a backpack with a wooden frame. For weapons he had only a flint dagger so small it seemed to be the Copper Age equivalent of a derringer, a six-foot-long stave for a bow that had not yet been completed; and a beautifully crafted deerskin quiver with a dozen arrows, only two of them with arrowheads attached.
Inspector Horn reckons Ötzi was in no hurry. At 10,500 feet, he made what appeared to be a camp in a protected gully on the mountain saddle, spreading his belongings around and sitting down to his last meal.
Roughly half an hour before his death he was having a proper meal, even a heavy meal,” Inspector Horn said. The Copper Age menu was well balanced, consisting of ibex meat, smoked or raw; einkorn wheat (an early domesticated variety), possibly in the form of bread; some sort of fat, which might have been from bacon or cheese; and bracken, a common fern.
There is even evidence that some of his food was recently cooked. “If you’re in a rush and the first thing is to get away from someone trying to kill you, that’s not what you do,” he said. Ötzi’s longbow was only half a day’s work from completion, he added, but there was no sign that he was working on it at the time.
Half an hour after Ötzi dined, the killer came along and shot him in the back from a distance of almost 100 feet. The arrow went under his left armpit and ripped through a roughly half-inch section of his subclavian artery, a wound that would have been quickly fatal and probably not treatable even in modern times, especially where it happened. By the angle of the wound, he was either shot from below and behind, or he had been bent forward when he was hit from above and behind.
The aim of the offender was to kill him, and he decides to take a long-distance shot — could be a learning effect from what happened one or two days before,” Inspector Horn said. “Which is pretty much what you see all the time nowadays. Most homicides are personal, and follow violence and an escalation of violence. I want to follow him, find him and kill him. All the emotions we have in homicide, these things have not died out in all these years.”
Robbery can certainly be ruled out, he said. Ötzi had a copper ax, a valuable artifact only rarely seen in burials of the period. His clothing and kit were a match for the harsh alpine climate, and probably valuable, made from the leather and fur of at least 10 animals of six species.
This was not a robbery gone bad or something,” Inspector Horn said; clearly, the killer was trying to cover up his act. “You go back to your village with this unusual ax, it would be pretty obvious what had happened.”
Ötzi’s cold case continues to yield surprises to scientists in many disciplines who still are studying his remains. Last year, for example, they discovered that he was infected with an unusual strain of H. pylori, the bacteria believed responsible for ulcers today.
There is one thing they are unlikely to discover, as Inspector Horn noted with a chuckle. “I’m not optimistic we’ll find the offender in Ötzi’s case.”
Both in life and in death, the Iceman seems uncannily familiar to his modern descendants, said the museum’s deputy director, Katharina Hersel.
He is so close to us. He uses the same equipment as we do when he goes to the mountain, just the materials are different,” she said. “And we are still killing each other, so maybe there hasn’t been so much evolution after all.”

TheChurchMilitant: Sometimes anti-social, but always anti-fascist since 2005.

John Martignoni wraps up his dialogue with an anti-Catholic.

To me, this exchange has highlighted the horrific error of the protestant heresy: Its de facto belief in the supremacy of each individual will. Make sure you read that sentence carefully. I typed "will", not "conscience". My heretic brothers and sisters pay lip service to conscience [as they have at least since Luther] when they really believe in the primacy of their own defective wills. This is why every Tom, Dick, and Darrell who enjoys a particular sin simply finds a "minister" who will let him do it "in good conscience" [masturbation, contraception, abortion, divorce, and adultery, for example] or, failing that. starts his own "church".

"Christian" heresy: 33,000 denominations and counting!

 If this newsletter  was forwarded to you by a friend, and you would like to be added to our distribution list, all you have to do is go to  http://www.biblechristiansociety.com/newsletter and put your email address in the box at the top of the page.   Either way, it will take you about 10 seconds.

General Comments

Hey folks,
       Well, it's hard to believe, but this is Issue #300 of Apologetics for the Masses.  I think when I started the newsletter - about 12-13 years ago or so - we might have had around 1000 subscribers by the end of the first year.  Now we're up to almost 35,000.  We reach people in every state and about 80 countries that I know of, at last count.  I want to thank all of you for your very kind support over the years. 

       I've always thought of this newsletter as a means to encourage you to go out and evangelize by helping you to be better prepared for the questions you were, and are, getting from non-Catholic Christians, atheists, nominal Catholics, and so on.  In that regard, I would like to ask you a question: If I were to do a newsletter every so often that was aimed specifically at non-Catholics, that addressed their concerns about a particular doctrine of the Church - the pope, Mary, praying to the saints, Purgatory, etc. - in a way that didn't include debating someone on the topic but was just a straightforward, "This is how Catholics look at [pick a doctrine] and why we believe the way we do...," would that be something that you would be comfortable forwarding to your non-Catholic friends?   I'm looking for ways to not only prepare folks to evangelize, but to give them an opportunity to actually evangelize.

       I guess what I'm saying is, if I take the time to do it, will you actually make use of it by sending it out to people that maybe you wouldn't normally send this newsletter to?  Let me know what you think.  And be honest...


Okay, wrapping up my dialogue with anti-Catholic Tony Thorne (see previous newsletters: 

This week I will be commenting on the responses he made to the last 5 of the 10 points that I made to him regarding chapter 3 of Romans (you can see the first 5 in last week's newsletter).  They are not in the form of a response to him because he withdrew from the field of battle before I ever responded to him on these particular points.  So, I'm going to post each of my initial points, then his response to those points, and then my comments on his responses.  And then I'll give a little summary of the conversation and the points I was trying to make with it.  


John Martignoni

      #6: If you want the context of this entire passage from Romans 3, you need to look to the Old Testament so that you don’t “topicalize.” In Romans 3:10-12, Paul is quoting from Psalm 14 and/or Psalm 53. In those Psalms, Paul states there is none that do good, no not one; that “all” have gone astray; all have fallen away. So, does that mean every single person? No, because the context of Psalms 14 and 53 is that there are the evildoers, the sons of men - those who deny God - and there are the people of God, the generation of the righteous. And it is about those who deny God that the psalmist says “all” have gone astray. In other words, the Old Testament, biblical-wide context for this passage of Romans, is that the word “all” simply does not mean every single person ever. If you miss the Old Testament context of the passage, then you miss the New Testament context of the passage, which you have done.

Tony Thorne

 I gave you the context in the answer to your first rabbit trail. Remember, you are not in control here. I don't adhere to daddy johns methodology, and quite frankly I think your a terrible bible expositor.

  Ad hominem über alles.


Sometimes, no comment is needed.  I will simply let his "argument" speak for itself. 

John Martignoni

       #7: In Luke, chapter 1, verse 6, it states, “And [Elizabeth and Zechariah - John the Baptist’s parents] were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless.” So, if Elizabeth and Zechariah were blameless in “ALL” of the Lord’s commandments and ordinances, do you contend that they had sinned?

Tony Thorne 

They were both righteous before God Not as the Pharisees, only righteous before men, but in the sight of God, who sees the heart, and whose judgment is according to truth; and therefore were not justified by the deeds of the law; for by them no man can be justified in the sight of God; but were made righteous through the righteousness of Christ, by which the saints were made righteous before the coming of Christ, as those after it: see ( Acts 15:11 ) ( Revelation 13:8 ) . God beheld them in his Son, as clothed with that righteousness he engaged to bring in, and as cleansed from all sin in that blood of his which was to be shed: and they appeared to him, and in the eye of his justice, and according to his law, righteous persons: though this character may also regard the internal holiness of their hearts, and the truth and sincerity of grace in them: which God, who trieth the hearts and reins of the children of men, knew, took notice of, and bore testimony to: as likewise their holy, upright walk and conversation before men, and which was observed by God, and acceptable to him, though imperfect, as arising from a principle of grace, being performed in the faith and fear of him, and with a view to his glory, and for the sake, and through the righteousness of his Son.


        My first question back to Tony, if he were still responding to me, would be: Since you admit to not being infallible, will you agree that what you just said could be wrong?  And, of course, we all know that he would never admit to that.  Fallible in theory, infallible in practice.  My second question to Tony would be: Where does the Bible say all of that stuff that you just said about Elizabeth and Zechariah?  Answer: Nowhere does it say what he said.  He just made all of that up. 

       By the way, did you notice that he never answered my question?  This is a common thing that folks do when they can't answer a straightforward question in a straightforward manner because, if they did, then it would put the lie to their particular belief system.  All I asked Tony was, essentially, "Did Elizabeth and Zechariah sin?"  All he had to do was say, "Yes," or "No."  Well, he can't say, "No," because that would upset his theological apple cart that ALL have sinned.  But, he can't really say, "Yes," either, because how does he explain that the Bible says they walked in "all the commandments AND ordinances of the Lord BLAMELESS?"  Doesn't blameless mean without sin?  Either way, he has a problem. 

       So, what does he do?  He answers a question that was never asked.  He starts talking about salvation not coming through the law but by grace.  Great.  But, if Elizabeth and Zechariah were blameless in ALL of the Lord's commandments and ordinances (and we know ALL means every single one of them that has ever existed, right?), then the question is: Did they ever sin?  He can't answer directly because he can't explain away the words "ALL"and "BLAMELESS".

John Martignoni

        #8: John the Baptist was filled with the Holy Spirit his entire life, even from his mother’s womb (Luke 1:15). Do you contend that he sinned?

Tony Thorne

       All have sinned

1. (Romans 3:9-10)--"What then? Are we better than they? Not at all; for we have already charged that both Jews and Greeks are all under sin; 10as it is written, "There is none righteous, not even one."

2. (Romans 3:23)--"for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God."

3. (Psalm 14:3)--"They have all turned aside; together they have become corrupt; there is no one who does good, not even one."

       All have not sinned

1. (Job 1:1)--"There was a man in the land of Uz, whose name was Job, and that man was blameless, upright, fearing God, and turning away from evil."

2. (Genesis 7:1)--"Then the Lord said to Noah, "Enter the ark, you and all your household; for you alone I have seen to be righteous before Me in this time."

3. (Luke 1:5-6)--"In the days of Herod, king of Judea, there was a certain priest named Zacharias, of the division of Abijah; and he had a wife from the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elizabeth. 6And they were both righteous in the sight of God, walking blamelessly in all the commandments and requirements of the Lord."

       The Bible clearly teaches that all people have sinned--except Jesus (1 Peter 2:22). Romans 3:23 clearly condemns all under sin. But when it mentions people like Job, Noah, Zacharias, and Elizabeth as people who were "blameless" and "righteous," it is not saying that they are not sinners. It is saying that they were godly people, who kept the commandments of God; and in that sense, they were righteous. But of course, we realize that no one can keep the commandments of God perfectly which is why all people are deserving of damnation (Eph. 2:3), and why we need a savior. If righteousness can come through the Law, then Christ died needlessly (Gal. 2:21).


        I love how he gives verses supporting both the "All have sinned" and the "All have not sinned" sides and then states - clearly, unequivocally, and apparently infallibly - that the Bible "clearly" teaches all have sinned.  He then goes on with more of the Law vs. grace argument...which is not at all pertinent to the question I asked, which is, essentially: Can a person who is filled with the Holy Spirit sin?  The word is "filled."  The Holy Spirit is all in him, with him, and through him.  Filled!  If he is filled with God, where is the room for sin? 

       And, here is the other thing Tony needs to consider: If a person who is filled with the Holy Spirit can sin - as Tony apparently believes - then how easy must it be for a person who is not filled with the Holy Spirit, but simply "guided" by the Holy Spirit, to wrongly interpret the Bible when they read it?  I mean, if a person can act against the Holy Spirit - even when He "fills" their entire being - and sin; then how easy it must be to simply make a mistake when you are being guided - from the outside - by the Holy Spirit.  In other words, being guided by the Holy Spirit when you are reading the Bible would guarantee nothing at all in terms of correct interpretation. 

       Did you notice how tangled up Tony gets in his own words?  Because he's making this stuff up as he goes, he tends to contradict himself.  Noah, Zechariah, Elizabeth, and so on are blameless and righteous and godly, but, of course, they are still sinners.  So, we now have various categories of sinners, thanks to Tony.  We have righteous sinners, and blameless sinners, and godly sinners.  Ever heard of a blameless sinner?  Do you see how people, when they rely on their own fallible opinions to form their own personal belief system, can really get twisted around in a hurry and say things that don't make a whole lot of sense?

       One last thought on this, do you see where Tony states that "no one can keep the commandments of God perfectly?"  I guess he has never read that verse of Scripture that states, "For all things are possible with God."  Tony limits what God can do and he makes God conform to what Tony believes, rather than conforming what Tony believes to God.  Plus, how does that statement fit with Elizabeth and Zechariah being blamelessin keeping ALL of God's commandments and ordinances? 

John Martignoni

#9: Have babies sinned?

Tony Thorne

We cannot simply assume that children are “innocent” and are therefore exempt from the penalties of sin. The Bible teaches clearly that infants are in a state of sin and need to be regenerated. They, like all humanity, can be saved only through Christ. Ps. 51:5 — “Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.” John 3:6 — “That which is born of the flesh is flesh.”


        Technically, Tony is correct.  Every human being is brought into this world in a state of original sin and, therefore, needs to be regenerated, or born again, in Christ.  Which is exactly what happens in Baptism, and which is why Catholics baptize babies.  Tony would, apparently, believe that any child who dies before they are capable of even speaking, much less of understanding who Jesus is and accepting Him into their hearts as their "personal Lord and Savior," is bound for Hell.  That there is no way for them to be saved until the reach the age of reason.  How very sad.  But, at least he is being consistent. 

       However, once again, he did not answer the question.  The question is: Have babies sinned?  Since to commit a sin requires knowledge of good and evil, and an act of the will, babies cannot sin.  They are born into a state of original sin, but that is not a personal sin that they have committed.  So, the only rational and reasonable answer to my question is, "No," babies have not sinned.  But, he can't answer that way because it would blow up his interpretation of Romans 3:23.

John Martignoni

       Now, #10, to answer your question about Mary in a simple and direct manner, per your request - I believe Mary was sinless her entire life because the Church founded by Jesus Christ - and guided by the Holy Spirit - which is the pillar and ground of the truth, tells me so. And, the Word of God supports that teaching 100%. You believe she sinned based on your fallible, man-made, non-authoritative, private interpretation of the Bible. Who should I believe - the Church founded by Jesus, or you?

Tony Thorne

Again please, show me this teaching that doesn't exist!

Many sincere Catholic people believe in the sinless Mary image, of the mother of Jesus because that is taught in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. What a shock it is to read something entirely different about her in the Bible. The Catholic sinless Mary is not the Mary of the Catholic Bible! Scripture reveals that everyone, except the Lord Jesus, has sinned. Jesus was sinless (2 Cor. 5:21; 1 Pet. 2:22; 1 John 3:5) and he alone was sinless:

First things first. Matthew 22:29 But Jesus answered and said to them, "You are mistaken, not understanding the Scriptures nor the power of God.


        If we read "something entirely different" about Mary in the Bible, as Tony says we do, then I would expect to find passages that talked about Mary doing something sinful, right?  So, exactly where in the Bible do we read that Mary commits a sin?  Well, we don't.  What do we read, though?  We see in Genesis 3:15 that God puts "enmity" between "the woman" and Satan.  What woman is that?  The woman whose "seed" [Jesus] will crush the head of the serpent.  Mary.  If there is enmity between Mary and Satan - enmity put there by God Almighty Himself - then how can we say Mary ever sinned?  Because if she sinned, that would mean Mary had taken Satan's side...no more enmity. 

       And, in Revelation 12:13-17, we see the dragon [Satan] pursuing "the woman" but he doesn't ever catch her because God, by a special grace, keeps her out of Satan's clutches.  What woman is that?  The woman who brought forth the male child that was to rule all the nations with a rod of iron (Rev 12:5).  Well, what woman brought forth that child [Jesus]?  Mary.  So, if Satan nevers catches Mary, how can someone say she sinned?  If she had sinned, wouldn't that be a good argument for saying he had caught her? 

       We also read that "all generations" will call Mary "blessed" and that she is "blessed" among women.  Well, if Eve was created without sin, then in order for Mary to be more blessed than Eve, wouldn't she also have to be created without sin? 

       Finally, Tony's quote of Matthew 22:29 is most appropriate.  Tony understands neither the Scriptures nor the power of God.  After all, he doesn't believe God could grant someone the grace necessary to be conceived without sin and to live their entire lives without committing a sin.  He believes it is not possible for someone to keep the commandments of God perfectly, yet, the Bible tells us all things are indeed possible with God. 


       Okay, what has been the purpose of all of this going round and round with Tony?  I wanted to do two things: 1) Show you a way to plant a seed with someone in regards to the Catholic belief in the sinlessness of Mary; and 2) Show you to what lengths some Protestants will go to in order to keep from admitting they are wrong...or that there is even just a chance they could be wrong.

       1) In order to "prove," from the Bible, that Mary did indeed commit a sin, the Protestant will almost always go, first and foremost, to Romans 3:23 - "For allhave sinned and fall short of the glory of God."  The argument is that "all" means absolutely every human being who has ever lived, and Mary is a human being who lived, so Mary sinned.  Period.  End of story.   

       My questions to Tony were meant to show that "all" is not necessarily an absolute.  The first question to him, is the first one I ask anyone who tries to use Rom 3:23 to "prove" that Mary sinned, was: "Are you seeking God?"  Every Christian I have ever asked that question of has replied in the affirmative.  "Yes, I am seeking God."  I then take them to Rom 3:11 and show them that they are contradicting Scripture because Scripture states that "no one" is seeking God.  The Bible says "no one."  And, if "all" is an absolute, then "no one" is an absolute.  So, going by how this person interprets the Bible - their methodology! - then either this person is wrong when they say they are seeking God, or the Bible is wrong to say no one is seeking God.  It has to be one or the other.

       Or, maybe there is a third possibility.  Maybe their way of interpreting the Bible isn't quite right.  Maybe "no one" is not an absolute.  Which means maybe "all" is not an absolute.  Which means maybe, just maybe, what Catholics teach could possibly be true...possibly.  That's where the seed is planted.  When you can get them to either realize that they have a consistency problem - unless they want to admit that they are not seeking God - which means that there is at least a possibility that "all" isn't necessarily an absolute.

       This is why I also bring up the examples of Elizabeth and Zechariah and John the Baptist.  I'm not saying that they were necessarily sinless, and neither does the Church say it as far as I know, but the Bible seems to give a strong indication in that direction.  And these folks go by the Bible and the Bible alone, so make them explain how Elizabeth and Zechariah were blameless if "all" have sinned.  And how John the Baptist, being filled with the Holy Spirit, could sin.  Ask, ask, ask, and make them defend, defend, defend. 

       Also, the verse from Matthew 3 - verse 5 - which states that allJudea went out to see John the Baptist and allthe region around the Jordan River did as well.  And verse 6 says they were all baptized by John.  Ask folks if "all" is an absolute here.  Ask them if "all" means absolutely everyone in Judea and the region around the Jordan.  Common sense of course tells you that it's not.  But, if they say, "No," then, once again, they have a consistency problem.  They take "all" as an absolute in one verse, but not in another.  However, if they say, "Yes," then they have an even bigger problem.  You see, in Luke 7:29-30, the Bible tells us that the Pharisees and the lawyers were not baptized by John.  So, Matthew 3:5-6 says "all," but Luke 7:29-30 says not all.  Which means, "all," as used in Matthew 3:5, does not mean absolutely everyone.  Very interesting.  We didn't get to see how Tony would deal with that particular dilemma, but I guarantee it would be to switch the subject and use a lot of words to say something that had nothing to do with the question at hand.  That is his modus operandi.  As it is of many who attack Catholic teaching.

       2) The other point I wanted to make, which is why I stayed with Tony for so long, was to show you to what lengths an anti-Catholic like Tony will go to keep from having to admit that they just might be wrong in what they believe - either about their own beliefs or about what they believe of Catholic teaching.  Did he ever respond to a direct question with a direct answer?  I don't think so.  Did he have to invent a whole lot of stuff that is nowhere found in the Bible to try and prove his points?  Yes indeed.  Did he have to twist and distort Scripture to get it to say what he wants it to say and to avoid the obvious meanings of passages that do not fit his theology?  Yes indeed. 

       The main point in my discussion with Tony - over and over again - was that if "all" is an absolute "all" in Romans 3:23, then "no one" has to be an absolute "no one" in Romans 3:11.  You can't have it both ways.  Yet, he wanted it both ways so badly that he went to what I would call extreme ends - twisting and contorting logic and Scripture and plain ol' common sense - to avoid admitting that he was being inconsistent in his interpretation of this passage and to avoid admitting that his interpretation could be wrong.  He wouldn't even admit the possibility that he could be wrong!

       Now, did Tony admit that he was not infallible?  Yes he did.  Good for him.  But, as I've stated before, every single Protestant will admit that they are not infallible, but then they will rarely admit, when you ask them, that something they said about their interpretation of the Bible could actually be wrong.  Fallible in theory, infallible in practice.  To admit that you are not infallible means that you could make a mistake when it comes to something like interpreting the Bible all by yourself, without any reference to any authority outside of your own intellect and will.  Yet, it absolutely amazes me how many people have admitted to me that they are not infallible when it comes to interpreting the Bible, and then in the very next breath they claim they are guided by the Holy Spirit in their interpretation of the Bible.  And they do not see the inherent contradiction in those two statements.

       So, the moral of the story is: You can, with just a little common sense and some simple logic, plant a seed or two with folks on this whole sinlessness of Mary issue.  You don't need to be a theologian to do it. 

       The other moral of the story is: There are lots and lots of Tony's out there - not necessarily as ill-mannered and ill-tempered - and you will run across them time and time again when defending your faith.  Do not waste an undue amount of time with them, unless, of course, you have an audience.  My general rule of thumb is to have 3 exchanges, and in each exchange you should be asking a question or two - and in exchange #2 repeat any unanswered questions from exchange #1, and do likewise in exchange #3 - and if none of your questions have been answered directly and rationally after the third go-round, then simply say, "Thanks, but no thanks," and shake the dust from your shoes and move on.

       If there is an audience, you can go another round or two so that they can see the Catholic answering questions, but having none of their questions answered.  That quite often has an impact on those who are not directly involved in the exchange.  But, even then, I wouldn't go more than another round or two. 

       Finally, one last observation.  Over the last few weeks I've had folks write to me to say they think it's much better to bring up other Scripture verses and passages in regard to Mary to "prove" that Mary was without sin and that I should have said this or that to Tony instead of doing what I did.  To those who did such, all I have to say is, "Folks, one size does not fit all."  I am just showing you what I do when Romans 3:23 is brought up.  If you want to, you can trade Bible verses all day long with someone...that's fine.  My approach here is to simply try and show the illogic and/or inconsistency in how they use and interpet a particular Scripture verse or verses.  Because, if you can, with just a little common sense, break down the logic behind someone else's argument, you can start planting seeds. 

       Okay, next newsletter, new topic...

Closing Comments

I hope all of you have a great week.  I would ask for prayers for my daughter as she will be taking her ACT test this week.  Please pray that she can score high enough to be eligible for some scholarships.  If she doesn't get a scholarship to go to college, then in another year or so when she goes off to college, my twice per year request for ten cents a day, will have to be ramped up to a request for a dollar a day!


The Bible Christian Society is a non-profit organization that relies solely on your support to bring the truths of the Catholic Faith to tens of thousands of people throughout the U.S. and all around the world each year.  If you would like to help us do what we do, you can donate online at: 

http://www.biblechristiansociety.com/donations, or send a check to: Bible Christian Society, PO Box 424, Pleasant Grove, AL  35127 .  Anything you can do is greatly appreciated!

TheChurchMilitant: Sometimes anti-social, but always anti-fascist since 2005.

If you have a woman in your life whom you love, buy her a gun and make sure she knows how to use it.

First, a few words from Dana Loesch, a real woman...

Why do fascists fear women with real power while they make noises about empowering them?

Because they know guns are the great equalizers. A small woman with a gun can kill a large fascist at a safe distance without so much as breaking a nail. Fascists hate guns unless they wield them.

Guns are freedom! Guard your freedom with your life!

TheChurchMilitant: Sometimes anti-social, but always anti-fascist since 2005.

Dr. Oz is a prick, but...

...the anti-vaccine Nazis are willfully ignorant pricks...

Vaccines are safe | Idaho Statesman

After we noticed the safety of vaccines here in the U.S. being called into question, we wanted to let YOU know the facts: Not only is the quality and integrity of your vaccines held to the highest standards, but every year the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention goes to great lengths to provide an easy-to-follow, appropriate vaccine schedule that’s as safe as possible for children, adolescents and adults.

Perhaps you weren’t aware that you’re also the beneficiary of a robust National Vaccine Plan that’s administered by the office of the secretary of health from Health and Human Services. That has helped greatly to improve vaccine safety over the past three decades.

Read more here: http://www.idahostatesman.com/living/health-fitness/article130951779.html#storylink=cpy

Then the Advisory Committee for Immunization Practices, chaired by the director of the CDC, weighs in. The ACIP is an advisory panel made up of 15 voting members (mostly M.D.s), eight ex officio members and 29 liaison organizations.

Read more here: http://www.idahostatesman.com/living/health-fitness/article130951779.html#storylink=cpy

The ACIP was established in 1964 by the surgeon general to help ensure safety in vaccine manufacturing, not long after Jonas Salk developed the first effective polio vaccine. To become part of the recommended vaccine schedule, the vaccine not only must go through clinical trials, but the developers must subject their vaccine to the lengthy process of data presentation and review. It can take months or years before an ACIP vote is even considered.

To gain a recommendation, the ACIP requires the use of an explicit evidence-based format. All meetings are open to the public.

Protection from Adverse Reactions

A representative from ACIP also serves as a liaison on the National Vaccine Advisory Committee, which was created in 1987. A division of the Office of Health and Human Services, the NVAC is the federal advisory committee responsible not only for recommending “ways to achieve optimal prevention of human infectious diseases through vaccine development,” but also for providing “direction to prevent adverse reactions to vaccines.”

The NVAC is made up of 11 members with various degrees, from M.D.s (six) to M.B.A.s and Ph.Ds. Their recommendations go to the National Vaccine Program Office. The NVPO is responsible for “coordinating and ensuring collaboration among the many federal agencies involved in vaccine and immunization activities” to make sure the goal of the National Vaccine Plan -- the prevention of infectious diseases through immunizations -- is met. The National Vaccine Plan was created in 2010.

Other federal agencies that are involved in making sure your vaccinations meet the highest standards include: the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; the Health Resources and Services Administration; the Department of Defense; the U.S. Agency for International Development; the Veterans Health Administration; and the Department of Veterans Affairs. There are many state and local agencies involved, too.

Since the ACIP was established, the number of vaccines included in the recommended child/adolescent immunization schedule (for birth through 18 years) has increased from six to 16. Only one vaccine was removed from the schedule, and that was in 1972, when smallpox was declared eradicated.

If you still have doubts about the safety of vaccines, we hope this will put them to rest: We (Drs. Roizen and Oz) spent a month reviewing every study on vaccine safety and interviewing 150 experts on all sides of the issue. Our conclusions: Vaccines aren’t perfectly safe, but the chance that the childhood vaccines will effectively and safely prevent disease is more than 40,000 times greater than the chance that they will cause any serious side effects. So getting your childhood vaccines is like winning the lottery!

You can see a synopsis of our findings in a chapter in “YOU: Raising Your Child.” Read it at www.doctoroz.com/article/book-excerpt-you-having-baby-vaccines.

Seriously, kiddies, people are dying every day from diseases that are easily and safely prevented. If you want to be a dumbass, be my guest, but you have no right to kill your children to prove your point.

Mehmet Oz, M.D. is host of “The Dr. Oz Show,” and Mike Roizen, M.D. is Chief Wellness Officer and Chair of Wellness Institute at Cleveland Clinic. To live your healthiest, visit www.sharecare.com.

Read more here: http://www.idahostatesman.com/living/health-fitness/article130951779.html#storylink=cpy

TheChurchMilitant: Sometimes anti-social, but always anti-fascist since 2005.

About Me

My photo
First of all, the word is SEX, not GENDER. If you are ever tempted to use the word GENDER, don't. The word is SEX! SEX! SEX! SEX! For example: "My sex is male." is correct. "My gender is male." means nothing. Look it up. What kind of sick neo-Puritan nonsense is this? Idiot left-fascists, get your blood-soaked paws off the English language. Hence I am choosing "male" under protest.


Blog Archive