No, you are not worth it

Relationships between men and women can be so frustrating, but I’ve come to the conclusion again (but in a deeper way) that really, only God is worth it. I remind myself that only when we love God first and foremost can we truly love another in the way that they deserve:

Only God is worth my desires, my heart
Only he is worth my attention, my time
No woman is worth my heart

I’m tired of being the white knight in shining armor
I’m tired of saving damsels in distress
I have very strong armor and a sharp sword
Yet I want to be seen for who I am under the armor
I don’t want to be used for what I can give
I want to be seen, appreciated for who I am

No, under the armor I’m not perfect
I have many scars
But God sees me for who I am
He understands me, appreciates me for who I am
No I’m not worth it either, but God makes me worthy
I don’t need to be seen, but I want be
I’m tired of the fakeness, yet I have all that is real and true
No, you are not worth it, but for me, if it is meant to be, he will make you worthy

Why you are not worth it

In this world today women feel over entitled. Feminism has destroyed relationships between men and women. Some evidence of this is the MGTOW movement; for the record I don’t entirely agree with the whole movement but have a listen to RIP Traditional Relationships – A Rude awakening. If we are merely looking on a worldly secular level, it makes no sense at all to get married. Why the hell would I want to get married if it is about mutual use instead free, self-giving love?

I talk to both men and women: they say they would want to believe in a love that is real, unselfish, self-giving, loyal, faithful, total, free, in other words a divine, Godly love, but they believe it is a fantasy. I believe, in part, they think it is a fantasy because they don’t experience this kind of love -a pure love- in their daily life: none in their “family”, none in their “community”, and not even among “friends” and sometimes not even in church! It seems an indictment on how far away people and society are from God, not having that kind of self-giving, loving relationship with God, thus they don’t have it in their personal daily relationships. Mere words are not going to convince people that this kind of love exists, it seems only by personal experience and testimony that people may be convinced.

No, marriage isn’t about “what’s in it for me?” or let’s have a contract: “i do this, you do that”. Marriage isn’t about just passing on your genes nor savage “survival of the fittest”. It’s not about “disney damsels, ponies and butterflies”. It can be about mutual emotional consolation, but it can’t be the only purpose. We in this society can be so selfish. It’s not about F-ing around but giving a good F, actually caring for the world, the future generation – imagine: for love of God and for someone outside ourselves.

Why marriage and relationships are worth it

I believe in marriage for many reasons, one reason is children benefit most from marriage. Without men to be fathers and women to be mothers, children become abandoned, who feel like orphans and in some real sense are actual orphans who do not know God, thus do not have a deep, unselfish relationship with him, thus recreating the dysfunctional cycle of fake-love in all their personal relationships.

I refuse to give up: I will fight for the homeless, orphaned, and abandoned because they are worth it. Building a society based on an authentic, life-giving love it worth it because it is what God wants: to love us as we are yet push us to grow, not for his benefit, but for our own benefit. Sure, loving on this higher level of Godly love is not always easy, but who wants a cheap “love” – real men are created for real love, which can be hard, but definitely worth it. Our bodies of man and woman, with our sexual organs, show we are made to be a mutual gift – we are not God, we cannot give what we don’t have – we have to be open to receiving the love of God, to give as he does.

 

Leave a comment

Time, Treasure, Talent (Revision 14)

See the life manual for more context. Our time, treasure, and talent should be about giving life i.e. creating memories and building relationships with God and others.

Resources to create memories and building relationships with God and others (This is woefully scarce; I have many more resources yet to organize here; come back later for more):

Leave a comment

God is love, but Love is not God

The word “Love” is perhaps the most abused word and I find that I should make a few notes:

  • “Love” has many different meanings (to dive deeper, see Deus Caritas Est [“God is Love”] and Caritas in Veritate [“Charity in Truth”])
  • Very often I talk about “Love” and “God” so much and I notice there may be a tendency to sometimes love the idea of “Love” [i.e. “God”] than the person of “Love” [i.e. Jesus]
  • God does [through Jesus] come down to our level [and it is good], but we have to remember and give respect to God by trying to rise up to Him (we need a deeper sense of transcendence):
    • Don’t dehumanize Jesus by stealing his teaching and philosophy (e.g. new age religion, “neo-paganism”), but not have a real relationship with the person of Jesus (Christianity is not primarily about ethics)
    • One can’t experience the divine without going deeply into Jesus as a human; scripture is one definite place where you can learn about the person of Jesus – you can’t love what you don’t know
    • Too often it seems we implicitly have a narcissistic attitude (“What’s in it for me?”) and design our lives accordingly. We can tend to control and design our own idea of God instead of having a relationship with God (e.g. lack of prayer); often in prayer we need to remain silent, at least for us to connect our heart to God:
      • God does not need prayer, it is we who need to pray to God (of course God wants us to pray, to love him, to give him time, to be grateful, to make him part of our lives)
      • In prayer, let the power of God take hold of you, don’t always try to rationalize
      • We by ourselves probably are of little effect, yet it seems the power of prayer in part is because God praying through us

If you are wondering where some of this content is coming from, these are some notes [combined with my own] from attending a retreat with Father Antoninus Wall O.P. (short bio). Other perhaps lesser-known facts: (1) Pope John Paul (now saint) was his peer/classmate when they were studying in Rome. (2) his stories are amazing e.g. teaching to Mother Teresa’s congregation.

Leave a comment

What Keeps Us From Having Deeper Friendships

A relevant article on pseudo-friendship (pun intended) I am archiving here in case the original website disappears:

What Keeps Us From Having Deeper Friendships

3 things sabotaging our need for genuine connection.

 

In an era where many of us have a million social media “friends,” but no one to hang out with on Friday night, deep friendships have become increasingly rare.

Our generation is kind of screwed up about friendship. I’m screwed up about friendship. We often have a hard time cultivating real, face to face friendships.

Why do we all feel this way? Here are three enemies that keep us from having deeper friendships:

Forming Ideal Lives on Our Social Media Feeds

We’ve accumulated an entire database of friends, retaining names and facts but omitting relationships and memories. “Hey, remember that one time we chatted on Facebook and shared the Google Image of that beach we both want to go to?” Yeah, neither do I.

The Internet has afforded each of us to live dazzling lives that aren’t ours. It leaves out the run-of-the-mill so we look like some sexy, adventure-seeking, friend-getting machines.

The Internet has afforded each of us to live dazzling lives that aren’t ours. One scroll through my Instagram will show you California, Oklahoma and Colorado—outdoors, mountains, weddings and playgrounds.

However, it won’t show you Netflix, lonely Friday nights, textbooks or that one night I spent sick in the bathroom three weeks ago. It leaves out the run-of-the-mill so we look like some sexy, adventure-seeking, friend-getting machines. We know the real story behind our own social media accounts, but somehow, we think everyone else’s life is more exciting than ours.

We are all mad scientists creating Frankenstein when it comes to social media modeling: the life we create turns its head, opens its eyes and becomes a monster. We start feeling down if we can’t find something worth posting on a daily basis.

On top of all of that, am I trying to be a cool, culturally aware Christian on social media just because I want more followers? After all, there’s nothing like being affirmed by a few hundred Twitter followers that I’m a good Christian. I tweet because I’m self-conscious.

Trying to Be Best Friends With Everyone

I grew up thinking that because I was a Christian, everyone had to be my best friend. I had to like everyone, and everyone had to like me and know my life story and be my accountability partner.

By the time I made it to college, I couldn’t do it anymore. My inner circle was as wide as the Pacific, and I didn’t have the relational energy to build a bridge across it.

I’ve since realized that Christians misrepresent friendship when they claim everyone is their friend. Jesus was not friends with everyone. Christ had His three, his 12, and His 5,000. He did not suffocate with FOMOOF (Fear Of Missing Out On Friendships). There were probably some great men and women in the crowd of 5,000 who sat eating the fish and loaves, but Jesus was purposeful about being with the 12.

Today there’s an extreme pressure to get to know everyone. We feel like we aren’t being fair to others if we grow deeper with one person and not another. We feel the need to spread ourselves out among 5,000 rather than with three.

I can only be friends with so many people, and I waste my time trying to be everything for everyone and end up being nothing for anyone, sitting alone watching Friends re-runs on a Friday night.

In order to understand how to have real friends, we must learn how to start small and remain intimate.

Using Technology as a Crutch

I can only be friends with so many people, and I waste my time trying to be everything for everyone and end up being nothing for anyone.

Before the invention of the air conditioner, families would spend hot summer nights sitting out on their porches and talking with the neighbors. Before the Internet, there was a sharing of communication through printed books and interviews (R.I.P. Borders). Before cell phones, there were landlines that only talked and didn’t text. Before GPS, there were maps and gas stations. And before Netflix, there was Blockbuster (R.I.P. again).

The modern world is becoming more and more efficient with work and less and less meaningful with human interactions.

No friendship is based on efficiency. Friendship is spending time with someone, intentionally setting aside time to look someone in the eye, to hear their voice and to watch their eyebrows furrow or cheeks get red.

It is not an efficient exercise; in fact, friendship necessitates inefficiency. It is days spent gazing at ocean waves rather than writing job applications, evenings spent drinking coffee with a friend rather than an essay, school nights spent watching sports or movies or playing games rather than studying or reading or sleeping. Jobs are practical. Getting good grades is practical. Networking is practical. Friendship is not.

If God were practical, I think He should have given up on me a long time ago. But He calls me His friend. And friendship is not easy, simple or practical.

Leave a comment

Meaningfulness matters more than Happiness

As a Christian, I found this article about a Jewish Holocaust survivor enlightening; while the article didn’t really speak of suffering specifically, I think it is pretty applicable:

A Psychiatrist Who Survived The Holocaust Explains Why Meaningfulness Matters More Than Happiness

“It is the very pursuit of happiness that thwarts happiness.”

In September 1942, Viktor Frankl, a prominent Jewish psychiatrist and neurologist in Vienna, was arrested and transported to a Nazi concentration camp with his wife and parents.

Three years later, when his camp was liberated, most of his family, including his pregnant wife, had perished — but he, prisoner number 119104, had lived. In his bestselling 1946 book, Man’s Search for Meaning, which he wrote in nine days about his experiences in the camps, Frankl concluded that the difference between those who had lived and those who had died came down to one thing: Meaning, an insight he came to early in life. When he was a high school student, one of his science teachers declared to the class, “Life is nothing more than a combustion process, a process of oxidation.” Frankl jumped out of his chair and responded, “Sir, if this is so, then what can be the meaning of life?”

As he saw in the camps, those who found meaning even in the most horrendous circumstances were far more resilient to suffering than those who did not. “Everything can be taken from a man but one thing,” Frankl wrote in Man’s Search for Meaning, “the last of the human freedoms — to choose one’s attitude in any given set of circumstances, to choose one’s own way.”

Frankl worked as a therapist in the camps, and in his book, he gives the example of two suicidal inmates he encountered there. Like many others in the camps, these two men were hopeless and thought that there was nothing more to expect from life, nothing to live for. “In both cases,” Frankl writes, “it was a question of getting them to realize that life was still expecting something from them; something in the future was expected of them.” For one man, it was his young child, who was then living in a foreign country. For the other, a scientist, it was a series of books that he needed to finish. Frankl writes:

This uniqueness and singleness which distinguishes each individual and gives a meaning to his existence has a bearing on creative work as much as it does on human love. When the impossibility of replacing a person is realized, it allows the responsibility which a man has for his existence and its continuance to appear in all its magnitude. A man who becomes conscious of the responsibility he bears toward a human being who affectionately waits for him, or to an unfinished work, will never be able to throw away his life. He knows the “why” for his existence, and will be able to bear almost any “how.”

In 1991, the Library of Congress and Book-of-the-Month Club listed Man’s Search for Meaning as one of the 10 most influential books in the United States. It has sold millions of copies worldwide. Now, over twenty years later, the book’s ethos — its emphasis on meaning, the value of suffering, and responsibility to something greater than the self — seems to be at odds with our culture, which is more interested in the pursuit of individual happiness than in the search for meaning. “To the European,” Frankl wrote, “it is a characteristic of the American culture that, again and again, one is commanded and ordered to ‘be happy.’ But happiness cannot be pursued; it must ensue. One must have a reason to ‘be happy.'”

girls dancing shadow silhouette happyFlickr/Christian HaughenEven though American happiness levels are at a four-year high, 4 out of 10 Americans have not discovered a satisfying life purpose.

According to Gallup, the happiness levels of Americans are at a four-year high — as is, it seems, the number of best-selling books with the word “happiness” in their titles. At this writing, Gallup also reports that nearly 60 percent all Americans today feel happy, without a lot of stress or worry. On the other hand, according to the Center for Disease Control, about 4 out of 10 Americans have not discovered a satisfying life purpose. Forty percent either do not think their lives have a clear sense of purpose or are neutral about whether their lives have purpose. Nearly a quarter of Americans feel neutral or do not have a strong sense of what makes their lives meaningful. Research has shown that having purpose and meaning in life increases overall well-being and life satisfaction, improves mental and physical health, enhances resiliency, enhances self-esteem, and decreases the chances of depression. On top of that, the single-minded pursuit of happiness is ironically leaving people less happy, according to recent research. “It is the very pursuit of happiness,” Frankl knew, “that thwarts happiness.”

***

This is why some researchers are cautioning against the pursuit of mere happiness. In a new study, which will be published this year in a forthcoming issue of the Journal of Positive Psychology, psychological scientists asked nearly 400 Americans aged 18 to 78 whether they thought their lives were meaningful and/or happy. Examining their self-reported attitudes toward meaning, happiness, and many other variables — like stress levels, spending patterns, and having children — over a month-long period, the researchers found that a meaningful life and happy life overlap in certain ways, but are ultimately very different. Leading a happy life, the psychologists found, is associated with being a “taker” while leading a meaningful life corresponds with being a “giver.”

“Happiness without meaning characterizes a relatively shallow, self-absorbed or even selfish life, in which things go well, needs and desire are easily satisfied, and difficult or taxing entanglements are avoided,” the authors write.

How do the happy life and the meaningful life differ? Happiness, they found, is about feeling good. Specifically, the researchers found that people who are happy tend to think that life is easy, they are in good physical health, and they are able to buy the things that they need and want. While not having enough money decreases how happy and meaningful you consider your life to be, it has a much greater impact on happiness. The happy life is also defined by a lack of stress or worry.

Most importantly from a social perspective, the pursuit of happiness is associated with selfish behavior—being, as mentioned, a “taker” rather than a “giver.”

The pursuit of happiness is associated with selfish behavior—being, as mentioned, a “taker” rather than a “giver.”

The psychologists give an evolutionary explanation for this: happiness is about drive reduction. If you have a need or a desire — like hunger — you satisfy it, and that makes you happy. People become happy, in other words, when they get what they want. Humans, then, are not the only ones who can feel happy. Animals have needs and drives, too, and when those drives are satisfied, animals also feel happy, the researchers point out.

“Happy people get a lot of joy from receiving benefits from others while people leading meaningful lives get a lot of joy from giving to others,” explained Kathleen Vohs, one of the authors of the study, in a recent presentation at the University of Pennsylvania. In other words, meaning transcends the self while happiness is all about giving the self what it wants. People who have high meaning in their lives are more likely to help others in need. “If anything, pure happiness is linked to not helping others in need,” the researchers, which include Stanford University’s Jennifer Aaker and Emily Garbinsky, write.

What sets human beings apart from animals is not the pursuit of happiness, which occurs all across the natural world, but the pursuit of meaning, which is unique to humans, according to Roy Baumeister, the lead researcher of the study and author, with John Tierney, of the recent book Willpower: Rediscovering the Greatest Human Strength. Baumeister, a social psychologists at Florida State University, was named an ISI highly cited scientific researcher in 2003.

The study participants reported deriving meaning from giving a part of themselves away to others and making a sacrifice on behalf of the overall group. In the words of Martin E. P. Seligman, one of the leading psychological scientists alive today, in the meaningful life “you use your highest strengths and talents to belong to and serve something you believe is larger than the self.” For instance, having more meaning in one’s life was associated with activities like buying presents for others, taking care of kids, and arguing. People whose lives have high levels of meaning often actively seek meaning out even when they know it will come at the expense of happiness. Because they have invested themselves in something bigger than themselves, they also worry more and have higher levels of stress and anxiety in their lives than happy people. Having children, for example, is associated with the meaningful life and requires self-sacrifice, but it has been famously associated with low happiness among parents, including the ones in this study. In fact, according to Harvard psychologist Daniel Gilbert, research shows that parents are less happy interacting with their children than they are exercising, eating, and watching television.

“Partly what we do as human beings is to take care of others and contribute to others. This makes life meaningful but it does not necessarily make us happy,” Baumeister told me in an interview.

Meaning is not only about transcending the self, but also about transcending the present moment — which is perhaps the most important finding of the study, according to the researchers. While happiness is an emotion felt in the here and now, it ultimately fades away, just as all emotions do; positive affect and feelings of pleasure are fleeting. The amount of time people report feeling good or bad correlates with happiness but not at all with meaning.

Meaning, on the other hand, is enduring. It connects the past to the present to the future. “Thinking beyond the present moment, into the past or future, was a sign of the relatively meaningful but unhappy life,” the researchers write. “Happiness is not generally found in contemplating the past or future.” That is, people who thought more about the present were happier, but people who spent more time thinking about the future or about past struggles and sufferings felt more meaning in their lives, though they were less happy.

Having negative events happen to you, the study found, decreases your happiness but increases the amount of meaning you have in life.

Having negative events happen to you, the study found, decreases your happiness but increases the amount of meaning you have in life.

Another study from 2011 confirmed this, finding that people who have meaning in their lives, in the form of a clearly defined purpose, rate their satisfaction with life higher even when they were feeling bad than those who did not have a clearly defined purpose. “If there is meaning in life at all,” Frankl wrote, “then there must be meaning in suffering.”

***

Which brings us back to Frankl’s life and, specifically, a decisive experience he had before he was sent to the concentration camps. It was an incident that emphasizes the difference between the pursuit of meaning and the pursuit of happiness in life.

In his early adulthood, before he and his family were taken away to the camps, Frankl had established himself as one of the leading psychiatrists in Vienna and the world. As a 16-year-old boy, for example, he struck up a correspondence with Sigmund Freud and one day sent Freud a two-page paper he had written. Freud, impressed by Frankl’s talent, sent the paper to the International Journal of Psychoanalysis for publication. “I hope you don’t object,” Freud wrote the teenager.

While he was in medical school, Frankl distinguished himself even further. Not only did he establish suicide-prevention centers for teenagers — a precursor to his work in the camps — but he was also developing his signature contribution to the field of clinical psychology: logotherapy, which is meant to help people overcome depression and achieve well-being by finding their unique meaning in life. By 1941, his theories had received international attention and he was working as the chief of neurology at Vienna’s Rothschild Hospital, where he risked his life and career by making false diagnoses of mentally ill patients so that they would not, per Nazi orders, be euthanized.

That was the same year when he had a decision to make, a decision that would change his life. With his career on the rise and the threat of the Nazis looming over him, Frankl had applied for a visa to America, which he was granted in 1941. By then, the Nazis had already started rounding up the Jews and taking them away to concentration camps, focusing on the elderly first. Frankl knew that it would only be time before the Nazis came to take his parents away. He also knew that once they did, he had a responsibility to be there with his parents to help them through the trauma of adjusting to camp life. On the other hand, as a newly married man with his visa in hand, he was tempted to leave for America and flee to safety, where he could distinguish himself even further in his field.

As Anna S. Redsand recounts in her biography of Frankl, he was at a loss for what to do, so he set out for St. Stephan’s Cathedral in Vienna to clear his head. Listening to the organ music, he repeatedly asked himself, “Should I leave my parents behind?… Should I say goodbye and leave them to their fate?” Where did his responsibility lie? He was looking for a “hint from heaven.”

When he returned home, he found it. A piece of marble was lying on the table. His father explained that it was from the rubble of one of the nearby synagogues that the Nazis had destroyed. The marble contained the fragment of one of the Ten Commandments — the one about honoring your father and your mother. With that, Frankl decided to stay in Vienna and forgo whatever opportunities for safety and career advancement awaited him in the United States. He decided to put aside his individual pursuits to serve his family and, later, other inmates in the camps.

The wisdom that Frankl derived from his experiences there, in the middle of unimaginable human suffering, is just as relevant now as it was then: “Being human always points, and is directed, to something or someone, other than oneself — be it a meaning to fulfill or another human being to encounter. The more one forgets himself — by giving himself to a cause to serve or another person to love — the more human he is.”

Baumeister and his colleagues would agree that the pursuit of meaning is what makes human beings uniquely human. By putting aside our selfish interests to serve someone or something larger than ourselves — by devoting our lives to “giving” rather than “taking” — we are not only expressing our fundamental humanity, but are also acknowledging that that there is more to the good life than the pursuit of simple happiness.

Leave a comment

Hypocrisy

Examples of Hypocrisy:

Leave a comment

Socratic Method

I guess I am blessed [with a cross?!] as somehow in past I learned to think this way naturally.

A good writeup on quora (wikipedia also has a good description of the Socratic Method):

Why the Socratic method you ask? The Socratic method was named after the classical Greek philosopher Socrates and introduced in the 4th century BC Socratic dialogue. It has common applications in law school, teaching, psychotherapy, and human management resources and training.  People in those industries and the layman alike can use it to:
•Build stronger beliefs in arguments, and eliminate misshapen or broken ones.
•Point out fallacies or flaws in thinking.
•Clarify feelings or insights about personal actions.
•Plan out the main train of thought in lessons.
•Test the logical foundation of any argument out there.

Here are the basics:

1. Locate the main argument in a statement or a statement that sums up an argument.  In other words, what is the defining argument that sums up a particular statement? Ask your opponent to sum up their argument if you’re stuck on step 1. Socrates asked fellow people questions like: ”What is justice?” or ”What is knowledge?”. He then let or asked them to make declarative statements like: ”Justice is x because of y.”

2. Investigate the implications of their argument. Assume that there argument is false and find an example or scenario to prove that the argument is flawed in some way. Say someone is trying to prove that a particular car is green. It seems like common sense at first, but then, using the Socratic method, you can come up with a counter argument to prove the limits of the argument like: ”Is the car still green to a blind person?”
•If they say no, then proceed to step 3.
•If they say yes, ask: ”Why isn’t it pink, blue, or purple?” or ”If they can’t see, then what makes the car green?”
The most important thing is to back your counter argument up with scenarios and examples when they try to defend their own argument.

3. Change their initial argument and take the exception into account. Once you have came up with a reasonable argument to disprove theirs, change their argument so it takes the new argument into account. So change the original argument ”The car is green” to an agreeable position like: ”It’s green to those who can see.”

4. Attack the new argument with another question. Ask your opponent: ”If you agree that it’s green to those that can see, then is it green to other animals who can see?”  Eventually, you will possibly come to an argument that your opponent agrees with but completely contradicts their initial one. The fun of the Socratic method is you have the potential to generate an infinite amount of questions, and an infinite amount of discussions.

5. Practice. Obviously, you’re probably not going to topple the debate club leader in one go. It should take about 5-10 minutes to learn, but several weeks to months if you want to become a well-versed expert in the field of debate, including the Socratic method.  But as Socrates said, “If you want to be a good saddler, saddle the worst horse; for if you can tame one, you can tame all.”    So start off small like I did by using the Socratic method in daily life discussions  with family and friends, and work your way up to more complex arguments in topics that you’re highly interested in or enjoy.

The Only Way to Become Amazingly Great at Something like the Socratic method, is to know when you’re wrong in a debate, admit it, and constantly keep challenging the logic in your beliefs so that they become stronger standing and longer-lasting.  After all, you don’t go from proving that bananas aren’t the tastiest fruit to successfully refuting a famous politicians argument on the war on terror without a little practice, you know?

Here’s a handy example:

Teacher: ”Student, what is goodness?”

Student: ”Teacher, goodness is when you give something to some one else.”

Teacher: ”Is it good to give someone a gun so they can murder someone else?”

”Is it  good if you give someones password to someone else without their  knowledge?”

”Is it good if you give someone a package containing a  wrapped up bomb?”

Student: ”Obviously not.”

Teacher: ”So it’s good to give something to some one else, provided that what they give will not harm themselves, or other people.”

Student: ”Certainly.”

Teacher: ”If you agree that giving someone something to harm themselves or others is not good, then what about giving a poor farmer a tool to harm a chicken for a short time and kill it, in order to benefit his starving family? ?

Student: ”I agree that it’s good for the family but not the chicken.”

Teacher: ”Yes, but you contradicted yourself when you said giving  someone something to harm someone else is not good, because you clearly agreed that it’s good in some applications.”

Leave a comment

A Purpose of Purpose

One day I shall die. Life is all too short in this world. What is it that I should contribute to this world?

I came into this world as an orphan: a casualty of war, inheritor of the effects of the sins of my ancestors.  God bless their souls, but what have our ancestors given us? With ever increasing divorce rates, we now have generations of people with at least one unavailable parent whose narcissism creates more parentless children. And is it the fault of our parents? What could they have done or what can we do to stop this madness?

Here is my attempt to create a Life Manual. Originally this was intended to be part of my will when I die, an inheritance gift to my future spouse and children. But I realized I could love more, I could give more if I give now and every day of my life instead of when I die. I want to give what was not given to me yet probably where it would be respectfully received.

I don’t have all the answers, yet I am coming to learn and experience through encounters with the supernatural. The purpose of this blog is to share my thoughts and experiences on how to live life to heal our society. A doctor can fail at his prescription to his patient. I’m not perfect [and not even a doctor], but I promise to be honest, admit when I’m wrong, and take ownership of the things I can and should own. The ultimate manual is with me and it will evolve as I live by example.

Leave a comment

How to Win the Culture War

How to Win the Culture War

To win any war, the three most necessary things to know are: (1) that you are at war, (2) who your enemy is, and (3) what weapons or strategies can defeat him.

You cannot win a war (1) if you simply sew peace banners on a battlefield, (2) if you fight civil wars against your allies, or (3) if you use the wrong weapons.

Here is a three point checklist for the culture wars.

1. We Are at War

If you don’t know that our entire civilization is in crisis, I hope you had a nice vacation on the moon. Many minds do seem moonstruck, however, blissfully unaware of the crisis—especially the “intellectuals,” who are supposed to be the most on top of current events. I was dumbfounded to read a cover article in Time devoted to the question: Why is everything getting better? Why is life so good today? Why does everybody feel so satisfied about the quality of life? Time never questioned the assumption, it just wondered why the music on the Titanic sounded so nice.

It turned out, on reading the article, that every single aspect of life that was mentioned, every single reason for life getting better, was economic. People are richer. End of discussion.

Perhaps Time is just Playboy with clothes on. For one kind of playboy, the world is one great big whorehouse. For another kind, it’s one great big piggy bank. For both, things are getting better and better.

There is a scientific refutation of the Pig Philosophy: the statistical fact that suicide, the most in-your-face index of unhappiness, is directly proportionate to wealth. The richer you are, the richer your family is, and the richer your country is, the more likely it is that you will find life so good that you will choose to blow your brains apart.

Suicide among pre-adults has increased 5000% since the “happy days” of the ’50s. If suicide, especially among the coming generation, is not an index of crisis, nothing is. Night is falling. What Chuck Colson has labeled “a new Dark Ages” is looming. And its Brave New World proved to be only a Cowardly Old Dream. We can see this now, at the end of “the century of genocide” that was christened “the Christian century” at its birth.

We’ve had prophets who warned us: Kierkegaard, 150 years ago, in The Present Age; and Spengler, 100 years ago, in The Decline of the West; and Aldous Huxley, seventy years ago, in Brave New World; and C. S. Lewis, forty years ago, in The Abolition of Man; and above all our popes: Leo XIII and Pius IX and Pius X and above all John Paul the Great, the greatest man in the world, the greatest man of the worst century. He had even more chutzpah than Ronald Reagan, who dared to call Them “the evil empire”: He called Us “the culture of death.” That’s our culture, and his, including Italy, with the lowest birth rate in the world, and Poland, which now wants to share in the rest of the West’s abortion holocaust.

If the God of life does not respond to this culture of death with judgment, God is not God. If God does not honor the blood of the hundreds of millions of innocent victims then the God of the Bible, the God of Israel, the God of orphans and widows, the Defender of the defenseless, is a man-made myth, a fairy tale.

But is not God forgiving?

He is, but the unrepentant refuse forgiveness. How can forgiveness be received by a moral relativist who denies that there is anything to forgive except a lack of self-esteem, nothing to judge but “judgmentalism?” How can a Pharisee or a pop psychologist be saved?

But is not God compassionate?

He is not compassionate to Moloch and Baal and Ashtaroth, and to Caananites who do their work, who “cause their children to walk through the fire.” Perhaps your God is—the God of your dreams, the God of your “religious preference”—but not the God revealed in the Bible.

But is not the God of the Bible revealed most fully and finally in the New Testament rather than the Old? In sweet and gentle Jesus rather than wrathful and warlike Jehovah?

The opposition is heretical: the old Gnostic-Manichaean-Marcionite heresy, as immortal as the demons who inspired it. For “I and the Father are one.” The opposition between nice Jesus and nasty Jehovah denies the very essence of Christianity: Christ’s identity as the Son of God. Let’s remember our theology and our biology: like Father, like Son.

But is not God a lover rather than a warrior?

No, God is a lover who is a warrior. The question fails to understand what love is, what the love that God is, is. Love is at war with hate, betrayal, selfishness, and all love’s enemies. Love fights. Ask any parent. Yuppie-love, like puppy-love, may be merely “compassion” (the fashionable word today), but father-love and mother-love are war.

In fact, every page of the Bible bristles with spears, from Genesis 3 through Revelation 20. The road from Paradise Lost to Paradise Regained is soaked in blood. At the very center of the story is a cross, a symbol of conflict if there ever was one. The theme of spiritual warfare is never absent in scripture, and never absent in the life and writings of a single saint. But it is never present in the religious education of any of my “Catholic” students at Boston College. Whenever I speak of it, they are stunned and silent, as if they have suddenly entered another world. They have. They have gone past the warm fuzzies, the fur coats of psychology-disguised-as-religion, into a world where they meet Christ the King, not Christ the Kitten. Welcome back from the moon, kids.

Where is the culture of death coming from? Here. America is the center of the culture of death. America is the world’s one and only cultural superpower.

If I haven’t shocked you yet, I will now. Do you know what Muslims call us? They call us “The Great Satan.” And do you know what I call them? I call them right. But America has the most just, and moral, and wise, and biblical historical and constitutional foundation in all the world. America is one of the most religious countries in the world. The Church is big and rich and free in America.

Yes. Just like ancient Israel. And if God still loves his Church in America, he will soon make it small and poor and persecuted, as he did to ancient Israel, so that he can keep it alive. If he loves us, he will prune us, and we will bleed, and the blood of the martyrs will be the seed of the Church again, and a second spring will come—but not without blood. It never happens without blood, sacrifice, and suffering. The continuation of Christ’s work—if it is really Christ’s work and not a comfortable counterfeit—can never happen without the Cross.

I don’t mean merely that Western civilization will die. That’s a piece of trivia. I mean eternal souls will die. Billions of Ramons and Vladamirs and Janes and Tiffanies will go to Hell. That’s what’s at stake in this war: not just whether America will become a banana republic, or whether we’ll forget Shakespeare, or even whether some nuclear terrorist will incinerate half of humanity, but whether our children and our children’s children will see God forever. That’s what’s at stake in “Hollywood versus America.” That’s why we must wake up and smell the rotting souls. Knowing we are at war is the first requirement for winning it.  The next thing we must do to win a war is to know our enemy.

2. Our Enemy

Who is our enemy?

Not Protestants. For almost half a millennium, many of us thought our enemies were Protestant heretics, and addressed that problem by consigning their bodies to battlefields and their souls to Hell. (Echoes of this strategy can still be heard in Northern Ireland.) Gradually, the light dawned: Protestants are not our enemies, they are our “separated brethren.” They will fight with us.

Not Jews. For almost two millennia many of us thought that, and did such Christless things to our “fathers in the faith” that we made it almost impossible for the Jews to see their God—the true God—in us.

Not Muslims, who are often more loyal to their half-Christ than we are to our whole Christ, who often live more godly lives following their fallible scriptures and their fallible prophet than we do following our infallible scriptures and our infallible prophet.

The same is true of the Mormons and the Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Quakers.

Our enemies are not “the liberals.” For one thing, the term is almost meaninglessly flexible. For another, it’s a political term, not a religious one. Whatever is good or bad about political liberalism, it’s neither the cause nor the cure of our present spiritual decay. Spiritual wars are not decided by whether welfare checks increase or decrease.

Our enemies are not anti-Catholic bigots who want to crucify us. They are the ones we’re trying to save. They are our patients, not our disease. Our word for them is Christ’s: “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.” We say this of the Chinese communist totalitarians who imprison and persecute Catholics, and to the Sudanese Muslim terrorists who enslave and murder Catholics. They are not our enemies, they are our patients. We are Christ’s nurses. The patients think the nurses are their enemies, but the nurses know better.

Our enemies are not even the media of the culture of death, not even Ted Turner or Larry Flynt or Howard Stern or Disney or Time-Warner. They too are victims, patients, though on a rampage against the hospital, poisoning other patients. But the poisoners are our patients too. So are homosexual activists, feminist witches, and abortionists. We go into gutters and pick up the spiritually dying and kiss those who spit at us, if we are cells in our Lord’s Body. If we do not physically go into gutters, we go into spiritual gutters, for we go where the need is.

Our enemies are not heretics within the Church, “cafeteria Catholics,” “Kennedy Catholics,” “I Did It My Way” Catholics. They are also our patients, though they are Quislings. They are the victims of our enemy, not our enemy.

Our enemies are not theologians in so-called Catholic theology departments who have sold their souls for thirty pieces of scholarship and prefer the plaudits of their peers to the praise of God. They are also our patients.

Our enemy is not even the few really bad priests and bishops, candidates for Christ’s Millstone of the Month Award, the modern Pharisees. They too are victims, in need of healing.

Who, then, is our enemy?

There are two answers. All the saints and popes throughout the Church’s history have given the same two answers, for these answers come from the Word of God on paper in the New Testament and the Word of God in flesh in Jesus Christ. Yet they are not well known. In fact, the first answer is almost never mentioned today. Not once in my life have I ever heard a homily on it, or a lecture by a Catholic theologian.

Our enemies are demons. Fallen angels. Evil spirits.

So says Jesus Christ: “Do not fear those who can kill the body and then has no more power over you. I will tell you whom to fear. Fear him who has power to destroy both body and soul in Hell.”

So says St. Peter, the first pope: “The Devil, like a roaring lion, is going through the world seeking the ruin of souls. Resist him, steadfast in the faith.” So says St. Paul: “We wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities and powers of wickedness in high places.”

So said Pope Leo the XIII, who received a vision of the 20th century that history has proved terrifyingly true. He saw Satan, at the beginning of time, allowed one century in which to do his worst work, and he chose the 20th. This pope with the name and heart of a lion was so overcome by the terror of this vision that he fell into a trance. When he awoke, he composed a prayer for the whole Church to use to get it through the 20th century. The prayer was widely known and prayed after every Mass—until the ’60s: exactly when the Church was struck with that incomparably swift disaster that we have not yet named (but which future historians will), the disaster that has destroyed a third of our priests, two-thirds of our nuns, and nine-tenths of our children’s theological knowledge; the disaster that has turned the faith of our fathers into the doubts of our dissenters, the wine of the Gospel into the water of psychobabble.

The restoration of the Church, and thus the world, might well begin with the restoration of the Lion’s prayer and the Lion’s vision, because this is the vision of all the popes and all the saints and our Lord himself: the vision of a real Hell, a real Satan, and real spiritual warfare.

I said there were two enemies. The second is even more terrifying than the first. There is one nightmare even more terrible than being chased and caught and tortured by the Devil. That is the nightmare of becoming a devil. The horror outside your soul is terrible enough; how can you bear to face the horror inside your soul?

What is the horror inside your soul? Sin. All sin is the Devil’s work, though he usually uses the flesh and the world as his instruments. Sin means inviting the Devil in. And we do it. That’s the only reason why he can do his awful work; God won’t let him do it without our free consent. And that’s why the Church is weak and the world is dying: because we are not saints.

3. The Weapon

And thus we have our third Necessary Thing: the weapon that will win the war and defeat our enemy. All it takes is saints.

Can you imagine what twelve more Mother Teresas would do for the world? Can you imagine what would happen if just twelve readers of this article offered Christ 100% of their hearts and held back nothing, absolutely nothing?

No, you can’t imagine it, any more than anyone could imagine how twelve nice Jewish boys could conquer the Roman Empire. You can’t imagine it, but you can do it. You can become a saint. Absolutely no one and nothing can stop you. It is your free choice. Here is one of the truest and most terrifying sentences I have ever read (from William Law’s Serious Call): “If you will look into your own heart in complete honesty, you must admit that there is one and only one reason why you are not a saint: you do not wholly want to be.”

That insight is terrifying because it is an indictment. But it is also thrillingly hopeful because it is an offer, an open door. Each of us can become a saint. We really can. What holds us back? Fear of paying the price.

What is the price? The answer is simple. T.S. Eliot defines the Christian life as: “A condition of complete simplicity/Costing not less than/Everything.” The price is everything: 100%. A worse martyrdom than the quick noose or stake: the martyrdom of dying daily, dying to all your desires and plans, including your plans about how to become a saint. A blank check to God. Complete submission, “islam,” “fiat”—Mary’s thing. Look what that simple Mary-thing did 2000 years ago: It brought God down and saved the world. It was meant to continue.

If we do that Mary-thing—and only if we do that—then all our apostolates will “work”: our missioning and catechizing and fathering and mothering and teaching and studying and nursing and businessing and priesting and bishoping—everything.

A bishop asked one of the priests of his diocese for recommendations on ways to increase vocations. The priest replied: The best way to attract men in this diocese to the priesthood, Your Excellency, would be your canonization.

Why not yours?

Source: http://www.integratedcatholiclife.org/2011/11/dr-kreeft-how-to-win-the-culture-war/

Leave a comment

Courageous Resolution

Here’s a commitment I think all men should make; it’s from the Courageous movie:

“”

I DO and solemnly resolve before God to take full responsibility for myself, my wife, and my children.

I WILL love them, protect them, serve them, and teach them the Word of God as the spiritual leader of my home.

I WILL be faithful to my wife, to love and honor her, and be willing to lay down my life for her as Jesus Christ did for me.

I WILL bless my children and teach them to love God with all their hearts, all of their minds, and all of their strength.

I WILL train them to honor authority and live responsibly.

I WILL confront evil, pursue justice, and love mercy.

I WILL pray for others and treat them with kindness, respect and compassion.

I WILL work diligently to provide for the needs of my family.

I WILL forgive those who have wronged me and reconcile with those I have wronged.

I WILL learn from my mistakes, repent of my sins, and walk with integrity as a man answerable to God.

I WILL seek to honor God, be faithful to His church, obey His Word and do His will.

I WILL courageously work with the strength God provides to fulfill this resolution for the rest of my life and for His glory.

“”

(http://www.courageousthemovie.com/)

 

The resolution above says “I WILL”, but I would replace that with “I DO”.

Men, we don’t have to wait until we’re married to do this.

Start NOW and become the strong men that our families need us to be!

ALL men are called to be Fathers.  Our wife is the the woman God created for us or the Church who is one with Love.  Our children are the beautiful images of God that God creates with our participation or the beautiful images of God we adopt spiritually.

Guys, our goal is to be fathers.  When we order our lives with God in the highest place and take responsibility for ourselves and others we become men.  When we are fathers to ourselves and for others, we are men of honor.

Saint Joseph, PRAY FOR US!

 

Leave a comment