Take a moment to watch the video below by Jaclyn Glenn.  (She doesn’t omit anything important from the original.)  I’ll wait.

Seriously, watch the video so that what you’re about to read makes sense.

Finished?  Good!

For starters, I am less disgusted with how she attempts to slander Christianity (extremely ineptly) and more disgusted with how poor her logic is in the attempt.  For a self-professed “logical” person (she even wears snazzy LOGIC tees for gosh sake’s) to use so many poor comparisons, poor logical connections between points of information, and just downright false information is astounding to me.  She should be ashamed of herself and strive to live up to her calling to be “logical” more faithfully next time around.

Now, for starters, it seems to me that her opening the video using the term “Christian propaganda” is just a ploy to indicate her disagreement with the message in the video.  I wonder if I would be similarly permitted to call her channel “atheist propaganda” because I disagree with the things that she says?  She simply tosses in the word “propaganda” (something with a blatantly negative connotation) and lets that word’s ugly subtext do her arguing for her, but this is disingenuous, and she knows it.

She should actually address the video instead of leading off her own video response by poisoning the entire discussion with a nasty (and in this case, untrue) word like “propaganda” when it so obviously doesn’t apply.

But on to her discussion.  She begins with this nonsense:

“I’m not saying that even if the Jesus character were real that He would have deserved a crucifixion, but what He did was an uprising against the government; anyone would have been killed for that!  It had nothing [she’s quite emphatic here] to do with who He was or who His followers thought He was.”

She then goes on to say:

“Oh, and not to mention that Holocaust victims are actually real people and so are Holocaust survivors’ descendants.”

Seems pretty real to me.  How about for you guys?

It seems to me that she is making the ludicrous assertion that Jesus is somehow less real than Holocaust victims.  Sorry to disappoint you, Jaclyn, but no one sane actually believes that Jesus never existed.  It is a widely accepted fact that the man was a historical figure who actually did roam the land of Galilee 2,000 years ago, and only the most foolish of lunatics believe otherwise.  In fact, Bart Ehrman, a former Fundamentalist Christian turned agnostic, wrote a book detailing how Jesus (a man) “became” God, but actually demonstrates that the man himself existed in order to build his case.

And yes, His execution totally did have something to do with who He claimed to be, who He was, and who His followers thought that He was.  The Sanhedrin (the council of Jewish leaders) had Him brought in at night to question Him, and when asked if He was the Christ, the Messiah, the Son of the Blessed One [God], Jesus replied “I AM.”  For this crime of blasphemy, the Jewish leaders had Him brought before Pilate to be killed.

Jaclyn’s main argument is that anyone would have been sentenced to death for causing unrest in the Empire, and she is probably right.  But here’s the problem with her “logic”: while it is most definitely true that Jesus was the source of much unrest in the land at this time, the primary reason that He was sent to Pilate to be crucified was because of who He claimed to be.  The unrest was a natural outgrowth of that assertion by Jesus and belief by His followers.  This is what caused the unrest, but that unrest would never have happened if He had not claimed to be the Son of God.  So, actually, His crucifixion did in fact have just about everything to do with who He claimed to be, who He was, and who His followers thought that He was.  Nice try Jaclyn; close, but no cigar.

Yet another gem from the powerful mind of Ms. Glenn:

“And just because His followers thought that He was saving them from sin, it doesn’t mean that He actually [again, super emphatic for whatever reason] saved them from anything.  A belief doesn’t make something a reality.”

And yet she does exactly this when she talks about Hitler later on in her video!  Hitler believed that he was acting in accord with Almighty God in exterminating the Jews, and he believed that this was in accord with Christian teaching and tradition, but the fact of the matter is that it was not—far from it, in fact.  She is right: belief in something does not necessarily equate to that something’s truth. She, however, ignores this obvious fact (one that she had just stated) and essentially makes this nonsensical assertion: when Jesus’ followers “believed” that He saved them from sin, they are crazy and worthy to be maligned and ridiculed as such, but when Hitler “believes” just as intensely that he is acting in a Christian way in starting WWII and the Holocaust, well, shit, he must be doing just that!  She contradicts herself big time here.

She then goes on a whole spiel about the death and Resurrection of Jesus (as if she actually knows a thing about Christianity other than what the Amazing Atheist’s Douchebag Bible has told her).  She says:

“Jesus—God Incarnate—knew what was going to happen.  He knew that He was going to *“die”* and then rise from the dead again three days later.  So… I’m sorry: He didn’t actually die; that’s not really that big of a sacrifice, knowing that you’re just gonna be in a coma for a few days and then wake up.  It’s not really the same thing as being dead.”

Well, you’re right on the first bit: congrats.  Jesus was, and is, fully God and fully man.  And yes, He did have divine foreknowledge concerning His eventual death and Resurrection.  How you start there and then jump to the next bit of your argument really is baffling to me, however.

So the fact that the Son of God, the Word, God Incarnate, “knew” that He would suffer, die, and rise again three days later somehow diminishes both 1.  His sufferings and 2.  His death?  I’m not buying it.

As for point number one: just because He knew that He would suffer and die, but then later rise, in no way diminishes the terrible pain and anguish that He underwent.  Remember: this is God we are talking about.  He had no need to come down and suffer and die for us: He is perfectly sufficient without us.  But the fact that He did so while we were set against God in our sins—enemies of God—is a testament to the true love and commitment that Jesus had for us.

"And the Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us."

In addition, it seems that knowing in advance the agony and pain that awaited Him would be all the more reason to flee such a dismal future, right?  Doesn’t the fact that He persevered in the face of torture make His act even more praiseworthy than if He didn’t have foreknowledge of what was awaiting Him?

Jesus, just casually moving freely toward impending death.  But no biggie, right?

Finally, it seems that Jaclyn is forgetting the very important detail that Jesus was, and is, fully God and fully man. What man relishes the thought of his future prosecution, persecution, and eventual execution? None. What man wants to die a gruesome death? None. As a man, He feared death and pain just like any other man, yet He persevered. She is unfair in her criticism of the sufferings Jesus would have to undergo with attempted appeals to His foreknowledge (which in no way diminishes the act itself, and in fact, probably increases the laudability of it), and with her disregard of Jesus’ true humanity.

As for point two: I am honestly shocked that she could even say that He did not actually die!  So because He rose three days later, He was never actually dead before that...?  From what was He rising?  A nap?  He was dead, Jaclyn!  The Romans made sure that everyone they were charged to execute actually died; they were known for their record-keeping, organization, and dedication to seeing a job through.  People put on crosses always died, Jaclyn. The Roman soldiers would never have let live a man that the leaders of the Jews wanted dead so badly.  This is just plain silliness.

She also makes the claim that she does not want to get into an “elementary school level debate” about whether or not Hitler was an atheist or a Christian because she “gets annoyed” when people say that she “has so much in common with Hitler” when they find out that she’s a vegetarian because “apparently Hitler was also a vegetarian.”

It is funny how she absolves herself from any association with Hitler with both of them being vegetarians—“there is no possible way that this links me and Hitler together in any way” she thinks to herself—yet she will go on to slander an entire group of believing Christians for the actions of a single madman just because they allegedly share the same belief.  I smell hypocrisy: anyone else?

Having authentic black and white pictures of WWII scenes (especially with Hitler and the pope) while she voices-over does not give her “point” any more credibility, and I really do wonder why she thinks that it does any such thing.  Hitler’s being “baptized a Roman Catholic, being an altar boy, wanting to become a priest, attending Catholic monastery school, and later expressing his ‘Christian support’ to the German citizenry and soldiers” all have absolutely nothing to do with whether or not Hitler was actually a Christian.

Just like Jaclyn used to be Catholic and did all the things little Catholic kids do does not mean that she is today a Catholic, right?  In fact, I know that she would vehemently resent that label.  So why ignore this same reasoning with Hitler?  What’s the matter? Don’t wanna claim him as your fellow atheist?  Because that is what he was, Jaclyn: he rejected Christian teaching wholeheartedly.  It was just an effective way to galvanize power and support for himself in the early years of Naziism.

Notice when he did these things: was it in the early years or later years of his rise and rule?  He obviously needed to employ Christianity as he tried to gain power because he knew that people would gravitate toward it, since it was familiar.  After he had consolidated all the power of the State and had literally become the State, the teachings were never thereafter heeded in any serious manner but were kept in place as a mere convenience and prop for use by the Nazis.

Finally, she brings up Mein Kampf, Hitler’s autobiographical manifesto.  (I was wondering how long it would take her to do that.)  Here are the two quotes she utilizes: “Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord” and “We tolerate no one in our ranks who attacks the ideas of Christianity.  Our movement is Christian.”

This just goes back to my previous point about belief and the truth of a belief.  This was also Jaclyn’s point: “A belief doesn’t make something a reality.”  So Hitler believes that by exterminating Jews he is doing God’s will and that his Nazi movement is Christian… so what?  Who cares?  Does this mean that he is in fact doing God’s will and that the movement is in fact Christian?  Crazy people believe a lot of crazy things; do we regard every utterance by a sadistic madman as Truth Itself?  No, but apparently we’re willing to make an exception for Hitler because, well, because everyone hates Christianity, right?

I mean, who wouldn't believe everything this guy said, huh?

She closes with this utterly scathing remark: “How dare you use the death of millions of people to propagate your beliefs, especially whenever those beliefs—Christianity—is what played a major role in this happening to the Jewish people to begin with.  How dare you!”

I think that I have shown that this is not what happened in the video at all.  But I do have a counter remark: How dare you, Jaclyn Glenn, use a video that is attempting to evangelize as a prop to spread your hate, pettiness, and illogic.  You make this a habit: picking on people (and doing it poorly) in order to spread your vicious brand of atheism.  It’s time someone called you out on it.  This is the first time that I’ve been in a position to do so; otherwise, it would have come from me sooner.

Let me know what you guys think in the Comments section!  Was I off-base?  Is Jaclyn actually right, or am I?

Follow @DeionKathawa

Much has been written on the subjects of faith, reason, and faith and reason. It is often said faith is contrary to reason, that they are at odds, that faith is blind, but it is reason that helps us to see. This is often the approach taken by many secularists and atheists. The main thrust of their message is that reason is better than faith, and that faith is useless—that it is an instrument of the stupid and the blind. Then, there are those on the other side, the fideists, who believe that faith in God is so vastly better than fallible human reason that reason is discarded almost entirely as a means to know truths about the world. The Catholic Church is very comfortable, and perhaps even happy, to soundly disagree with both of these points of view. And I believe that She (the Church, for She is the Bride of Christ) is right. Faith and reason, as Blessed Pope John Paul II wrote in his encyclical Fides et Ratio (Faith and Reason):

“are like two wings on which the human spirit rises to the contemplation of truth; and God has placed in the human heart a desire to know the truth—in a word, to know himself—so that, by knowing and loving God, men and women may also come to the fullness of truth about themselves.”

I wish to take a somewhat novel approach to this idea of faith, reason, and their inevitable interplay. I believe that there is an entirely different way to view faith and reason: with faith as precursor to reason.  As St. Augustine said, “I believe, in order to understand; and I understand, the better to believe.”

The traditional view is one espoused by Dr. Kreeft in his book, Handbook of Catholic Apologetics, wherein he says something to the effect of, “Reason is the guide that brings us to the door; faith is what takes us through it.” This almost gives the implication that reason is our sole guide up to a certain point, faith past that point, and that the two are distinct (insofar as they never overlap); that is, reason takes us from point A to point B, then faith takes us from point B to point C: linear, clean-cut, simple. I believe that this is simply not the case: I would like to expand upon the existent framework—the architecture—of our view of faith and reason. I propose that faith presupposes, and therefore guides, reason. Said another way: one must have some semblance of faith in order that reason may lead him unto deeper faith... until that one fateful, and glorious day, in which reason bid him farewell, and he may now swim in the ocean of faith: ever careful to remain in its warm embrace, moving ever onward—and inward—in the Hope of Christ.

Imagine Reason as a formidable man who leads us unto knowledge of reality. He is a powerful ally, and we are gifted by him with rationality, logic, and powers of deduction and mental juxtaposition in order that we may defeat all those heinous enemies—irrationality, illogic, oversimplification, and unchecked emotion—that lie between us and Perfect Truth, Beauty and Goodness: in a word, God Himself. Reason, however, has one fatal flaw: he has only to work with what we offer him—our finite (and sometimes depressingly fallible) minds. As a result, he cannot lead past the door, or into the water.

Reason, however, does not guide us unaided, for Faith is close at hand, and here is where it gets interesting. I propose that Reason guides, not unaided, but aided—by Faith. I propose that Faith is the unseen, though ever-present guide, on our life-long journey to the Triune God.

Think about it briefly. Why would you pore through book after book, video after video, talk after talk, if you expected to find nothing of use to you concerning a particular subject? If you expected not to find the information that you required, you would not have wasted your time in the first place, right? Therefore, Reason cannot tell us that we should believe in God until Faith has so prompted it to begin seeking Him out. Reason can provide us logical evidence to believe, but only Faith can tell us that it is a worthwhile pursuit at all.

But Reason and Faith most definitely complement each other—there is no doubt about this. St. Thomas Aquinas wrote, “I would not believe if I did not find it reasonable to believe.” Buried in that sublime and beautiful statement, however, is a pearl of wisdom that we could all benefit from: what does Aquinas not mention that almost assuredly presupposed his finding it reasonable to believe in the first place? Faith! He could not have deigned to so seek reasons to believe if he did not first have faith that he would find something—the answer to his question, his life—its origin, purpose, and ultimate end. It is a bit like a man who has lost his watch: he searches in all the places he has been previously, turning up sofa cushions and stray magazines, all in an attempt to find his watch. Note, however, the way in which he does it. He does not simply check in random places: he checks in places in which he has faith that he will find it; indeed, he checks with the overall faith that he will indeed find his watch somewhere. Reason has no part in the genesis of this search: the man is distraught, upset that he has lost a precious possession, he is running on pure emotion—yet what does he cling to? His faith that the watch will be found! Once Faith has said, “There, there, my child: do not fret, for we will see this thing through,” Reason then has purview to begin his quest.

There is abundant evidence from Sacred Scripture that speaks to this idea as well, but I shall focus on two of the most powerful examples. The story of Abraham immediately springs to mind, and we all know the story: Abraham hears a call from God to perform a gut-wrenching deed—to kill his son. God says, “Take your son Isaac, your only one, whom you love, and go to the land of Moriah. There, offer him up as a burnt offering on one of the heights that I will point out to you” (Gen. 22:2). Is it logical to conclude that God’s command made any sense whatsoever to Abraham, who had waited until he was an old man to finally be gifted a son by God? Did it appeal to Abraham’s reason in any way? Of course it didn’t! But what does Abraham do? He takes his son to the place that the Lord shows him, and just as he is about to sacrifice him, an angel of the Lord appears and says to him, “Do not lay your hand on the boy…. For now I know that you fear God…” (Gen. 22:12). Notice the convention about which I have been writing: faith leads to reason. Abraham understands that Isaac was never in harm’s way to begin with—but it is only after he had the initial faith in God did his reason finally make sense of any of it at all.

My second example will be Mary, the Virgin Mother of God. Mary was perhaps only 14 years old when she was betrothed to Joseph. One day, an angel of the Lord, Gabriel, appears to her and says, “Behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall name him Jesus” (Luke 1:31). Mary, full of grace and gifted with the eyes of faith, replies, “Behold, I am the handmaid of the Lord. May it be done to me according to your word” (Luke 1:38). Mary, a self-professed (and actual) virgin “was greatly troubled at what was said” (Luke 1:29), but what does she ultimately do, even in the face of fear? She has faith in the Providence of the Lord! Faith preceded reason in this case. It was only later that all of it fell into place for Mary, just like it did for Abraham.

And do you know what the best part about this whole story is, my dear readers? It is found in our relationship with and to God: “For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him might have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world might be saved through him” (John 3:16-17). We can approach our search with Hope—not some wishy-washy version of hope that we find in our sad modern-day world, but, rather, authentic, supernatural Hope in God who is ever-faithful and cannot deceive or be deceived, the One Who keeps His promises. The Father, by His Son’s perfect atoning sacrifice on the Cross, has now sent Their joint Holy Spirit, Their Perfect Love for one another, Their very Breath, for the sanctification of the world and the conversion of sinners just like me and you. So have faith, my friends!—even if you do not yet recognize it.

Follow @DeionKathawa

For starters, I would just like to say that I am overjoyed that you are reading this blog. I believe that the time you spend here will be time well spent. I hope you leave having learned something, and that you continue to come back if you have. (And if you don’t, come back anyway: I’m sure something that I write will eventually make sense!)

As to why I decided to write this blog. I was, in part, inspired by what I saw around me every day. I saw friends, people on the news, and complete strangers seemingly struggling with questions and grappling with existential crises that I, by the grace of God, had found answers to. I did not want to see these people continue to struggle so mightily with these crushing doubts. I wanted to help.

I also cannot deny that I have always had a penchant for writing. The practice has always soothed me, brought me comfort and clarity, and has always had a certain draw over me. Most people that I know aren’t terribly fond of writing (you guys know who you are!); they would prefer to spend their time solving math or physics problems, writing code, or some other thoroughly non-writing activity; just the thought of those makes me shudder.

Finally, I must give credit where credit is due. I have God to thank for instilling in me the zeal to share my faith, the will to carry it out, the intellect to make this blog any good, and for His grace which allows me to persist in this life at all. He has thoroughly inspired me: and how could He not? He is my Creator, my Redeemer, and my Sanctifier. He is my origin and my end; He is the reason for my existence and the object of my ever-striving love. He alone is the purpose for which I live—all else is fanfare and extra.

Now, for the purpose of this blog. I will not bore you with lofty notions and high-minded idealism. (Who am I kidding? I’m totally going to do that!) My hope is that this blog, above all, informs you, dear reader. I hope it inspires you to look deeper, live more deeply, and, above all, love to the fullest. I hope it causes you to seek your origin, your identity, your purpose, and your end. What are my answers to you if I were asked these questions? My origin is the Father, the Creator and Sustainer of the universe and myself; my identity is an adopted son of the Father and joint-heir with Christ, His Beloved Son, the Second Person of the Most Blessed Trinity, God Incarnate; my purpose in this life is to know, love, and serve the Lord; my end is the contemplation of God, face-to-Face, in Heaven, my true home. I write these things with utmost confidence. This leads me to realize that there is another hope that I have for this blog: I hope that this blog aids you on your own personal journey and encounter with Jesus Christ, the Logos of the Father, Who will give you assurances to these four most important questions if you but seek Him sincerely and ask Him with confidence.

(And by the way: I’m sure you noticed that there is actually no hint of megalomania anywhere in this post. I know, I know, I didn’t technically tell the truth; I’ll try not to make it a habit.) Well, let’s get to it then!

Follow @DeionKathawa