Thank you for this much needed perspective. Our nation certainly has huge problems, and I fear that they are only going to worsen. Yet our connection to and continuity within the very long history of the Church and the even longer story of salvation history comforts me when I’m tempted to fly off the handle with anger or worry. God is so much bigger and knows so much more. So again, thank you for the timely reminder.

Thank You for such a beautiful article.  It is very encouraging. d

well, I just read Jen’s words, and that is exactly how I feel.  Then I read your article again and was even deep-er-ly touched. The only thing that keeps me going in this world is God never and has never let me alone; and when I am down a bit like now, sometimes, he leads me to the most wonder people like yourself.  I know he has a very big purpose for me, but I don’t know exactly how it is to be spelled out by him. Thanks again for Your encouragement.  PS about the election. . . .I don’t feel we lost. . .although things has happened to appear we have HE

Thanks for including the beautiful photos.  They are the perfect visualization for the thoughts you shared.

“Beauty is one of the attributes of God, along with truth and goodness.”
How do you know that?  Is this just “wishful thinking”?  Is this your basic definition of your god?  Does your god really take any action in this world?  Why do you think so?  Science says there are no miracles.  The miracles justifying your saints are ridiculous.
“the fate of our nation”
Hilarious.
“our smallest actions do matter”
Even my “smallest actions” right here, right now?
“the cares of our day ... are only a very small part of God’s grand plan.”
How so you know that?  Or is it just a fundamental assumption that you have never questioned?
“Our nation certainly has huge problems”
Not compared to a lot of other nations.
“God is so much bigger and knows so much more.”
How do you know that?
“I know he has a very big purpose for me”
How do you know that?

Earl,

May I ask a question with all due respect?  If you believe that faith in God, and Catholicism in particular, is folly; then why do you came here?

Suffice it to say, you are NOT going to convince anyone here to change over to your world view.  If that is your true desire, you are wasting your breath and the bandwith.

Perhaps, deep down inside, there is something inside you that has sent you on a search for Truth? If you come here seeking that, I sincerely pray that you find it and also find peace within.

Larry

LarryW2LJ ,
I wonder about that, too but God must bring these folks here for a reason.

Well done Jennifer.  We so need to stop, pray, and find that peace-filled abbey within (if we are unable to go to one).  Then we will be able to be armed with the armor of God and be prepared to do His will…giving thanks to Him always and everywhere.  Well done, indeed.

Earl,
How would science prove a miracle if its supernatural? Thats what super natural means, beyond our natural understanding. The problem with your logic is that there are many miracles today that science could not explain and therefore could not disprove. Thats why the Church ask scientist to come and try to find a natural explanation first. Quantam physics now says two things can occupy the same place at the same time. I am sure you will trust the scientist with this truth but if I asked you how to explain it, you could’nt. We all have an element of faith and trust in things we cant always prove even if you dont believe in god Earl.

The article was really about having genuine peace about those things we cant always control or fully explain yet believe. Your comments seemed rooted in anxiety for absolute proof on all things which will just lead to more anxiety . The Catholic Church has been an enduring example of Christs promise to guide for 2000 years inspite of its membership and all the internal and external attacks to destroy it. It is a temporal example of enduring peace pointing to the promise of eternal peace which is what I hope you find Earl

That’s what I need- a vacation in Mt. Angel.  I wonder if they have any cells available over Thanksgiving Weekend?

Thank you for this piece!  I spent four wonderful years as a seminarian on the hilltop.  I always wanted to take Br. Claude’s iconography class but was never able to make it happen.  Mt. Angel Abbey is a beautiful place and no matter what was going on in my life (or our country), compline with the monks always helped me put things into perspective.

I feel the same way about visiting St. Meinrad’s Archabbey.  Right now, I think I need a visit there.

Most of my family is in the area- I took my first retreat there with my mother when I was 12! Have a great time

Br. Lane is your cousin??? I love his work!  Pray for me there!

Thank you Jennifer.  Reading your column has been like a short visit to an abbey for me.  Enjoy your trip!

Very cool! If you encounter him, say hello to my friend Br. Niels Nielsen (the doucaine player)

Thanks for your article! I live in Mt. Angel, the town at the bottom of the Abbey Hill, and love hearing the bells from our house. The Abbey is indeed a place of serenity and peace, and truly a “hidden” gem in our beautiful Willamette Valley. I hope your visit is enjoyable and rewarding. Also, please give my regards to Br. Claude.
—Lucy Astorga

Jennifer, thank you for this article.  It helped me a bit.  I wish I could get away to a monestary and pray.  I’m thinking a lot of uncharitable thoughts today and need to detach myself from the world.

“why do you come here?”
The “echo chamber” of “that’s sooo wonderful” needs a little antidote.
“sent you on a search for Truth?”
Hilarious.  An idiot on the “I don’t understand atheists thread” is trying that silly gambit.
“but God must bring these folks here for a reason.”
Hilarious.  Might the reason be that there is a 0.0001% chance that one of you indoctrinated people might have a tiny smidgen of doubt?  Nah, it could never happen.  Your “belief without evidence” is too strong!
“Then we will be able to be armed with the armor of God”
Hilarious.  Whom are you going to “fight”?
“giving thanks to Him”
Why does a “god” need “thanks”?
“The problem with your logic is that there are many miracles today that science could not explain and therefore could not disprove.”
Your miracles are simply anecdotes.  Science does not waste time trying to disprove anecdotes.
“That’s why the Church asks scientists to come and try to find a natural explanation first.”
Hilarious nonsense.
“anxiety for absolute proof on all things”
Hilarious.  Science is not about “proof”.  Science tries to obtain a proper understanding of reality.
“The Catholic Church has been an enduring example of Christ’s promise”
How do you know that?

@Earl writes: “Science is not about “proof”.  Science tries to obtain a proper understanding of reality.”

Then I’d have to say your hilarity is proof that science is a failure, because you obviously do not understand reality in the slightest.

Earl, watch this and then shut up:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/thecrescat/2012/10/why-youre-too-stupid-to-be-an-atheist.html

But way to ask lots of questions?

I seem so smart when everything ends with a question mark?

What would I have done without you Earl?

You complete me?

Science is not about proof?  So much for the silly scientifc method. And I am the one out of touch with reality? Earl, the process Science uses to obtain a proper understanding of reality is through observation, measurement and testing? Proof! Otherwise they cant defend that their observation of reality is correct.  DId I mention the scientific method is deeply rooted in catholic higher education.

I have spent time at New Norcia, a Benedictine Monestry in Western Australia. A great place to think without too many distractions.
Hey Earl, I have asked myself the same questions, even come to similar conclusions at different times. Perhaps you might dare to spend a little time in a monastery. They feed you well,a nice wine with lunch and dinner, sleeping quarters are great, you could even attend “The Hours” (when they chant psalms) with the monks…beautiful singing!

I have to wonder why atheists feel the need to troll Christian sites and flame with hate mongering. 

A for effort, Earl.

F for originality.

love that place but have not been in years! My uncle is the prior….I think? Fr Vincent. Tell him hello if you see him :)

Thank you, Jen.

And the fact that Earl questions shows that he is more than the sum of his parts.  Dogs don’t wonder.  Earl does.

I was taught by Benedictines during my high school years.

Earl, I hope the other posters include you in their prayers.  Somehow I have the feeling that although you use the word “hilarious” liberally, deep down you are anything but “hilarious”/happy.  The peace of the Lord be with you. (He’s just waiting for you to ask.)

The Benedictine formula:

UIOGD (ut in omnibus glorificetur Deus) that in all things God be glorified

ORA ET LABORA - Pray & Work

These plus hospitality written into St Benedict’s Rule have been the hallmarks of Benedictine abbeys and priories down the centuries.

thank you ,Jennifer , for a lovely , different ” election story ” , and the included photos .
i am sure Mt. Angel will benefit all the Fulwilers !
i wish i could talk ,peacefully , face-to face with Earl , who has ” responded ” to your story in an intriguing and sorry way.
i have been an ordinary practising Catholic for the last 72 years , and for the first time am experiencing some strange and almost eerie happenings associated with Saint Kateri , who was canonized on October 21st last.would love to be grilled by Earl , whilst i did the best i could to tell him what’s been happening to me . Earl might have a field day , or he might finally acknowledge that some things have no rational , scientific explanation !

since Kateri was a native - born American , there may be no surprise in me mentioning her on this site .
the trouble is , i live in southern Tasmania , on the opposite side of the world , and we have no American Native Indians here that i’m aware of .
i especially liked Nani’s comments.
regards to all of you from the Tasmanian Devils ( animals i. e.)

Jennifer, if you have time, pay a visit to nearby Silver Falls Park - one of the most beautiful places in the Northwest.

“Earl, watch this and then shut up:”
Hilarious.  Note the silly comments by Ted there.
“Science is not about proof?”
Well, the word “proof” has a number of meanings.  Science tries to come up with the best explanation of reality.  If you want to call that “proof”, I will not try to argue with you.  But all scientific explanations are “tentative”.  If a better scientific explanation is found, then the former explanation is modified or discarded.
“Otherwise they can’t defend that their observation of reality is correct.”
If they have to “defend” their explanation of reality, then it should be against an alternative explanation of reality.  Then perhaps the “proof” is still in doubt.
“I hope the other posters include you in their prayers.”
Hilarious.  Prayers have been shown scientifically to be useless.
“deep down you are anything but “hilarious”/happy.”
Hilarious.  You know virtually nothing about me.
“i wish i could talk, peacefully, face-to face with Earl”
Why?  What could you possibly say?  Do you have some personal anecdote to relate?
“for the first time am experiencing some strange and almost eerie happenings associated with Saint Kateri”
Hilarious.
“he might finally acknowledge that some things have no rational, scientific explanation!”
Hilarious.  I’m not interested in your personal anecdote.
“Tasmanian Devils”
On their way to extinction in the wild.  Soon to be found only in zoos.

@Earl- at first I thought you had left me out, but of course you really just dismissed my critique of your reductionism as “silly”.

And so I’ll try again.

Science fails you because your rules for evidence eliminate more than half the evidence you need to get a complete picture of objective reality.  You’re left with basically being just a parrot; repeating the tired old and mostly disproven arguments of men smarter than you. 

There is NOTHING you can show me that disproves Catholicism- and 2000 years worth of empirical evidence, right up to the restatement of the scientific method in Nostra Aetate, that proves Catholicism to be correct.

Go back and study some more.  Maybe one day you’ll be informed enough to be worth our time to discuss with.  Right now, based on your complete inability to reason displayed in these two posts, you simply aren’t.

The sad part is, I’ve yet to meet an atheist who is actually able to think instead of just parroting Nietzsche, Dawkins, Hume and Locke (who, while they had other significant problems with their logic, at least made an attempt to be original instead of hopelessly derivative).

Earl,  You post now trying to redefine the word “proof”  to support you illogical arguments.  Could you help me understand your Your comment I copied below from another topic you trolled on NOV 5 saying SCIENCE REQUIRES EVIDENCE HMMMM!  I guess in your mind Proof and Evidence are not even close. Good try EARL

Posted by Earl Thompson on Monday, Nov 5, 2012 7:36 PM (EST):
“comfortable posting a comment that amounts to nothing but a scoff and a sneer”
Is this really the place for a discussion of the incompatibility of science and religion?  There are a thousand posts already out there on the web.  Read WEIT.  Fundamentally, science is about the natural world and religion requires a supernatural world.  Science requires “evidence” and there is no evidence for anything supernatural.  So they are incompatible at a very fundamental level.

Read more: http://74.6.117.48/search/srpcache?ei=UTF-8&p=science+requires+evidence+earl+thompson&fr=aaplw&u=http://cc.bingj.com/cache.aspx?q=science+requires+evidence+earl+thompson&d=27023833079554015&mkt=en-US&setlang=en-US&w=ezTNw8Lxx0s&icp=1&.intl=us&sig=Zyg8HJOjTvy17Yx11HgJRg—#ixzz2BeoBJVJE

Earl went to public school.  So did I but I graduated before it got really bad.

Jen, I’m curious, are you staying at the Abbey with all your children? How does that work? What do you do together?

I don’t know if this is true for Jen BUT:
A while back, Knights of Columbus paid for a new building.  At that time, the previous retreat center was refurbished and modernized.  It now has guest rooms available including double beds for married couples:
http://www.mountangelabbey.org/retreat-house/PrivateRetreats.htm

I would assume that her family is staying there.

Other housing is available at the abbey for seminarians and monks, or down at the “Queen of Angels Monastery” (what they renamed the convent to a few years back) for single women (including a 2nd retreat house down on the Valley floor) and for the elderly (Queen of Angels, in conjunction with the Sisters of Providence, runs a Nursing Home).

So beautiful there.  I once spent a week with cloistered nuns in a Benedictine Abbey and it is one of the best things I ever did.

“I’ve yet to meet an atheist who is actually able to think”
Hilarious.  How would you know?

“Hilarious.  How would you know?”

A lack of cutting and pasting out of Dawkins _The God Delusion_ would be the first clue.  I don’t know why he doesn’t just sue you all for copyright infringement and live in luxury for the rest of his life.

Jerry Coyne:
“Although I’m a bit wary of saying that one shouldn’t vote against a candidate solely because of his/her religion, note that Mittens argues that his religious opposition to abortion should become public policy. THAT is the danger of religion, and why religious “truth” differs from scientific truth. In the case of the former, because one thinks he has the handle on what God absolutely decrees, it’s incumbent to try to impose that on everyone else, regardless of their faith.”
http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2012/11/09/even-more-reason-why-its-good-that-obama-won/

@Earl- more cutting and pasting I see.  And thus, more proof that you’re not smart enough to even be an atheist, let alone a Catholic.

For one, you and Jerry clearly do not know the authentic meaning of the word Liberty.

Or good, since you define a genocide that takes a million lives a year as good.

Or science for that matter, because you disagree with science on when life begins, and thus would force your religion on others all in a bloodthirsty effort to continue the genocide.

Quoted from the comments at that link:
[Note: John Safran ridicules religion in “John Safran vs God”.  So it ironic that the Crescat Catholic blog appears to take this skit seriously.]
TS:“You are lying when you pretend atheists are good.”
BW:“Nope. Some atheists are good, some are bad. You’re a liar, and a bad one at that.”
TS:“There are no good atheists, only delusional ones.”
BW:“It doesn’t take much of anything to see your bigotry against atheists.”
TS:“Which takes us right back to the title of this blog- for I consider them far too stupid to be intellectually honest.”
BW:“So leave. Nobody’s keeping you here except your oversize ego.”
TS:“If you don’t like being painted as a murderer- don’t be an atheist.”
BW:“Only dishonest fanatics like yourself equate atheists and murderers.”
TS:Everybody knows that euthanasia is murder.”
BW:“Here’s a newsflash: not everyone agrees with you. “Everybody knows” is just another lie of yours.”
and on and on and on

Yes, I am bigotted against idiots like you, Earl.  Parrots who never had an original thought of their own.

There is no sin in being bigoted against evil.

Ah, where to begin, young Earl?
Science and religion are not proposed to answer the same questions neither from the same perspective. If I asked you if something was beautiful, would you drag out a slide rule? How about a periodic table? What you are missing are 2 basic things: one is that Christains, of most stripes, believe that there has been a moment where Jesus Christ has made himself truly present to them. If they are honest Christians, they know that there could be no way to have manufactured such a knowledge. It would be akin to having said you met or knew someone, without having done so. Additionally that they have no merit of any of this gift, merely the acceptance of a transformative new reality. This is why the language of conversion and baptism involves words like “reborn” and “new life”. The other thing that is puzzling is that you seem to think that faith opposes reason and science. How could you possibly account for the thousand of schools at every level of education and profession that either began or currently continue under the hard work and sacrifice of religious auspice? And do refrain from that old bugaboo Galileo. The Church literally pinned medals on Copernicus, because of his lack of arrogance in his science, which held many enduring truths. Someone pious once wrote that everyone who does seek truth seeks God, whether they recognize that fact or not. So lay down your anger, and meet some real Christians, not just the parodies you see on TV, and seek the truth.

She was a Methodist minister.  Now she has “come out” as an atheist.  She went to an atheist convention and spoke to them:

“First of all I want to apologize to all of you. I was one of those crazy fundamentalists, right-wingers, haters. That’s the only word I can use for it. I want to say that I’m sorry to each of you for knocking on your door — you know what I’m talking about — trying to weasel my way in so I could convince you how wrong you were and how right I was.

“I want to apologize for verbally abusing you from the pulpit; for using the pulpit as a bully pulpit to just… hate. I can’t think of a better word for it: hating. I want to apologize to you for believing that you were godless, heathen, slimy, immoral, and drunken.

“I never knew anything about you. I had never seen any of your faces. You were just ‘those people.’ I was the one on the right track, and you were the ones who were going to burn in hell. And I’m happy to say as I stand before you right now, I’m gonna burn with you! I have lived with guilt and with god as a taskmaster for 44 years. No more.”

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2012/11/10/teresa-macbain-from-methodist-minister-to-atheist-advocate/

Earl,

I want to personally thank you for what you have accomplished thus far on this site. This article was really about Peace and how it can be found.  Earl Thompson successfuly showed us all what path not to take if genunine peace is to be found. Your tone, underlying anxiety and lack of peace( which you wont admit) has been so affirming. I know Earl that you will find my comments “Hilarius” and you will follow up Earl with a brilliant comment such as ” how would you know” to articulate your position.

I just wanted to make sure you keep up the good work! Get to trolling

“If you believe that faith in God, and Catholicism in particular, is folly; then why do you came here?”

Someone may find this hilarious, though I’ll argue that he is searching for some meaning and something deeper.  He’s lost so reacts to any religious discussion by lashing out in a mocking and pureile tone. 

Read more: http://www.ncregister.com/blog/jennifer-fulwiler/the-big-picture#ixzz2BxWi3yvF

“This article was really about Peace and how it can be found.”
Hie thee to a nunnery.
“what path not to take”
Can you be more specific?
“underlying anxiety”
Methinks thou readest too much into these words.  You know virtually nothing about me.
“lack of peace (which you won’t admit)”
First we would have to agree on a definition of “peace”.

“How would science prove a miracle if it’s supernatural?”
It is a difficult problem.  The bottom line is that no purported “miracle” actually has sufficient evidence.
http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2012/11/08/shermer-and-i-disagree-on-the-supernatural/

I only need to know three things about Earl:
1.  He is too stupid to know that most evolutionary biologists are Catholic and evolution is in fact Catholic doctine at present time.
2.  He does not know the real definition of the word evidence, choosing skepticism instead.
3.  He is a sad and lonely man who will die alone, likely in suicide, because that is the common end of all atheism.

Wow!  This is going long.  Jennifer will be there and back again.

Correction:  evolution is NOT Catholic doctrine at present nor has ever been. 
Concerning human evolution, the Church has a more definite teaching. It ALLOWS FOR THE POSSIBILITY that man’s body developed from previous biological forms, under God’s guidance, but it INSISTS ON THE SPECIAL CREASTION OF HIS SOUL.  Pope Pius XII declared that “the teaching authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions . . . take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter—[but] the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God” (Pius XII, Humani Generis 36). So whether the human body was specially created or developed, we are required to hold as a matter of Catholic faith that the human soul is specially created; it did not evolve, and it is not inherited from our parents, as our bodies are.

So, basically it allows room for inquiries into the origin of the human body…that’s as far as our Catholic faith goes at this time.

God’s Peace be with each of you.

Earl,

Help me reason through your pro- abortion post I copied at the bottom.. I cant see the oppostion you claim in how ” scientifc truth” and “religious truth” are opposed.

So lets just talk science Earl so these simpleton Catholics can understand.  Is there some kind of “scientifc truth” that babies are not human that you can enlighten us with Earl?  I am guessing there is not but you represent science so help us out.  So your argument is what.  ” That if there is moral objection to killing humans at any age its only a Religious argument not a moral or reasonable argument and therefore can not find it self in the public domain. 
So the” Danger of Religion” are those terrible people that think ripping babies apart or experimenting with them is bad.  So please tell me the Danger in that. 

“THAT is the danger of religion, and why religious “truth” differs from scientific truth. In the case of the former, because one thinks he has the handle on what God absolutely decrees, it’s incumbent to try to impose that on everyone else, regardless of their faith.”

Read more: http://www.ncregister.com/blog/jennifer-fulwiler/the-big-picture?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+NCRegisterDailyBlog+National+Catholic+Register&utm_content=Yahoo!+Mail#When:2012-11-7#ixzz2C2AcOWvJ

“your pro-abortion post I copied at the bottom”
That quote is from Jerry Coyne at the referenced URL.  You may go to that web site and attempt to post your comment.  The actual post is mainly about the crazy beliefs of Mormons.  Ridiculous comments are frequently not accepted.
“Is there some kind of “scientifc truth” that babies are not human?”
Google is your friend.  Define “baby”.  Define “fetus”.  Define “time of viability”.  Determine what states have placed what restrictions on abortion.
“objection to killing humans at any age”
Define “murder”.  Define “justifiable homicide”.  Define “negligent homicide”.  Criminal law makes a lot of distinctions.
“think ripping babies apart”
The point is that every religion “knows the truth” and everything is “black and white” and compromise in the real world is not allowed.

Earl- I still don’t know why any self-respecting Catholic should listen to a broken man like you.

“Google is your friend.  Define “baby”.  Define “fetus”.  Define “time of viability”.  Determine what states have placed what restrictions on abortion.”

All of which are not science.  Try again.  Define HUMAN BEING.  Better yet, reference Roe V. Wade’s definition of a human being- where they admitted that the fetus and the zygote are human beings, just not “persons deserving of federal protection” (in other words, like you, and like all pro-choicers, you’re a bunch of unscientific bigots, no different from the KKK or the Nazis).

“Define “murder”.  Define “justifiable homicide”.  Define “negligent homicide”.  Criminal law makes a lot of distinctions.”

Criminal law isn’t scientific and never has been.  You aren’t being objective about this.

“The point is that every religion “knows the truth” and everything is “black and white” and compromise in the real world is not allowed.”

Compromise isn’t scientific.  Nobody compromises on the law of gravity.

“Science and religion are not proposed to answer the same questions”
Science tries to understand reality.  Religion as such is incapable of answering any “questions”.
“If I asked you if something was beautiful…”
Such silliness has been beaten to death on the web.  Define “beauty”.  Why should any religion have a special religious definition of that word?  Why is the human mind and its conception of “beauty” not a proper study of science?
“Christians ... believe that there has been a moment where Jesus Christ has made himself truly present to them.”
Yes, your holy book of mythology makes that very clear.  So what?
“they know that there could be no way to have manufactured such a knowledge.”
Why do you call this “knowledge”?  Why could such a mythology not be “manufactured”?
“you seem to think that faith opposes reason and science.”
Faith is “belief without evidence”.  Science is justified by the fact that it really works for a proper understanding of reality.  So, yes, faith opposes science.  If faith had belief with evidence, we would call it science.
“schools ... that either began or currently continue under the hard work and sacrifice of religious auspice?”
Humans are really, really good at “compartmentalization”.
“Someone pious once wrote that everyone who does seek truth seeks God, whether they recognize that fact or not.”
Such an opinion is just another religious opinion.
“So lay down your anger”
I’m not angry.  I’m having fun in my retirement.
“meet some real Christians”
But do not, under any circumstances, attempt to talk about religion or politics with them.
“the parodies you see on TV”
Evangelicals really are funny, aren’t they?
Wait.  Here is a Catholic priest saying really silly things about science:
http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2012/11/12/a-priest-goes-after-scientism-again/
“and seek the truth.”
Science seeks to understand reality.  Religion seeks to control people.

EARL,

I GOING TO STOP FEEDING THE TROLL NOW SINCE ITS GETTING PRETTY SAD WATCHING HIM THROW UP ON HIMSELF OVER AND OVER WITH HIS EFFORT TO ACTUALY ANSWER A QUESTION.  HIS MENTAL GYMNASTICS IN TRYING NOT TO DEFINE A HUMAN AGAIN IS SO CONFIRMING IN DEFINING HIS SAD CONDITION. HIS AMAZING ABILITY TO LIE TO HIMSELF ABOUT WHAT DEFINES A HUMAN IS PROFOUND. MAYBE A DNA TEST WOULD DEFINE A HUMAN EARL.  OBSERVABLE, MEASURED TESTING PART OF THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD.

From Wikipedia:
“The zygote divides inside the female’s uterus to become an embryo, which over a period of thirty-eight weeks (9 months) of gestation becomes a fetus. After this span of time, the fully grown fetus is birthed from the woman’s body and breathes independently as an infant for the first time. At this point, most modern cultures recognize the baby as a person entitled to the full protection of the law, though some jurisdictions extend various levels of personhood earlier to human fetuses while they remain in the uterus.”

@Earl- at what point does that definition claim that the zygote, embryo, fetus, or infant is anything other than a member of species homo sapiens, and thus human?

Who cares about legal personhood or cultural relativism.  The question is, scientifically, is the zygote, embryo, fetus, or even blastocyst anything OTHER than a part of the species homo sapiens?

If it is, then you might have a point.  If it isn’t, then abortion is no different than cannibalism.

Earl, the problem you are dealing with is you use Wikipedia.  All those little terms some person came up with describe the stages of “life” of a person.  It is really quite simple…this incredible person developing quite rapidly within the womb of its mother.  If it wasn’t developing, the little person’s life has ended.  To rip it from it’s Mother’s womb, as abortionists do, most times will end its life.  They weren’t quite satisfied to stop there though, because of what they do to those little persons who survive their abortion (murder).  They then purposefully continue—to end the life of a person.  Is this helpful in understanding life and why people say they are pro-life?

Posted by Earl Thompson on Tuesday, Nov 13, 2012 3:43 PM (EDT):From Wikipedia:

“After this span of time, the fully grown fetus is birthed from the woman’s body and breathes independently as an infant for the first time. At this point, most modern cultures recognize the baby as a person entitled to the full protection of the law,...”
**********************
That leaves one to wonder which “modern” cultures, don’t?

From:
http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2012/11/14/its-time-to-abort-the-catholic-church/

“The latest victim in over a millennium of Catholic abuse is Savita Halappanavar, a young woman who was 17 weeks pregnant when her condition began to deteriorate. She went to a Catholic hospital, a fatal mistake.

  …she was miscarrying, and after one day in severe pain, Ms Halappanavar asked for a medical termination.

  This was refused, he says, because the foetal heartbeat was still present and they were told, “this is a Catholic country”.

  She spent a further 2½ days “in agony” until the foetal heartbeat stopped.

She was clearly miscarrying, she was fully dilated and leaking amniotic fluid, and it was obvious to all, including the doctors at the hospital, that this pregnancy was doomed — there was no hope for the fetus at all. Yet they refused to do the one simple, ethical procedure that would have saved Halappanavar’s life.

Because of a simple-minded, naive, stupid attachment to the magical power of twitching cardiac muscle fibers. Because dogma and superstition stayed their hands.

Because it was a [bad word] Catholic hospital in a Catholic country.

Because doctors had been indoctrinated since childhood in lies that were shown to be false during their medical training, but which they could not overcome; because hospital administrators put their faith above their obligation to serve patients; because lawmakers in that country shied away from learning how their policies killed women; because a mob of celibate old puppetmasters don’t give a damn about anything other than their theology and will happily sacrifice human beings on the altar of their vile and backward religion.

The end result: a septicemic infection swept through the gaping wound of Halappanavar’s cervix, killing her, after days of agony. The pope and his bishops, and the faithful Catholics in that hospital, killed her as surely as if they’d taken a scalpel to her throat — which would have been a more merciful death than the misery they put her through.”

From the report in the Irish Times:
“As long as there is a foetal heartbeat we can’t do anything”
What?  They didn’t say “human heartbeat”???

Wouldn’t be wonderful if we could return to the time when abortion was illegal and illegal abortions were common and women who suffered complications then went to a regular hospital with the hope that they could be restored to life and health?  NOT!!!

Earl, once again, your source isn’t what I would hold as reliable—from wikipedia to “evolution, development, & random biological ejaculations from a godless liberal.”  If you do not believe in God, then you are missing the profound beauty of life.  If you open your soul to Him even a smidgen, He will astound you with a love that you never knew existed.  You’ll be in my prayers.  Welcome home Jennifer…thanks for the article of Peace.

Warning- free thought is a code word for anti-Catholic bigot.  This is likely a fake story, a made up lie.  After. All, atheists have NO ethics at all.

Fellow readers,
I am only slightly surprised by the duration of the bantering and badgering that continues for the amusement of Earl.  How many of you have witnessed his antics on other blog posts? Using Word Count, the reader responses to this one blog in total have generated 20 pages, 6494 words, and 668 lines.  Of those, 17 pages, 5361 words and 569 lines have belonged to argument from and to Earl.  And to what purpose?  We have largely turned over this article and reflection on it to a man who cares not for the article, nor for reflection in general or for any of us.  In fact, Earl as much as said this himself on a previous post…by his own admission, he is here precisely to mock and provoke…an unfortunate use of retirement, a time when he could choose to offer his time and insights to something constructive for the BENEFIT of his fellow human beings.  Although this may prompt another “Earl Thought,” I would encourage those readers who show up here to respond to Jennifer’s postings and to leave Earl to talk with himself.  He is his own best audience.  We began all of this by contemplating what is important in life and using the sanctuary of a monastery to foster insights that bring peace to ourselves and to those with whom we interact.
May God bless a constructive use of this blog and be an encouragement to readers who are here for the very real purpose of sharing and caring for one another.

I find the bantering between Earl and the other readers to be very interesting. Without him, all you would be able to discuss is how peaceful it is at the Benedictine monastery. He stimulates the conversation. 

However, having said that, I find that Earl does not enjoy the peace of mind that believers are able to experience and share.  Like Earl, I do not believe in a supernatural anything. But I can’t help but be impressed by the love and concern that believers have for one another. I believe that being religious has been a part of our evolution and that stepping out of those beliefs is difficult but necessary. Sure, I can appreciate the peacefulness of the Benedictine monastery as well as the next person. But is that peace based on something that is real or imaginary?

“Ireland has a long and bloody history on the subject of abortion—in fact, on any subject relating to human reproduction. At every step of the way when attempts were made to modernize the country’s attitude to sex and relationships, the Roman Catholic Church and its supporters have fought hard to stop progress in its tracks and bring the country back in line with Catholic Stone Age morality, a morality in which reproduction is paramount regardless of the cost to parents and children alike.”
...
“What makes this position uglier is that Irish politicians have been dragging their heels for more than twenty years on this subject. After all this time, they are still terrified of the political clout that the Catholic Church has in Ireland.”

“If it wasn’t developing, the little person’s life has ended.”
Or it’s in the process of ending and if you are in a Catholic hospital, you could die.

“your source isn’t what I would hold as reliable”
The link is to the Irish Times.  There are now a large number of posts about this story.
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/frontpage/2012/1114/1224326575203.html
http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2012/11/14/around-ftb-11/
“There have been vigils all across Ireland. A doctor weighs in. You knew it wouldn’t be long before Irish authorities started making excuses”

“If you do not believe in God, then you are missing the profound beauty of life.”
What a stupid thing to write!
“If you open your soul to Him…”
There is no such thing as a “soul” and there is no evidence for Woden, Thor, Osiris, or any other gods.

“How many of you have witnessed his antics on other blog posts?”
You are missing quite a few.  Whenever I am banned, I must change my name.
“he is here precisely to mock”
Belief without evidence is irrational and religion often causes more harm than good.
“something constructive for the BENEFIT of his fellow human beings.”
I volunteer about 1000 hours per year, but 500 of that is during the Income Tax season.  Now is “slack time”.
“We began all of this by contemplating what is important in life”
Religion need not be one of those things.
“using the sanctuary of a monastery to foster insights that bring peace to ourselves”
And how many people take the time to go to a monastery?  With their kids?
“May God bless a constructive use of this blog”
Impossible on several counts.  But JF should come back soon and provide a new target-rich post.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/frontpage/2012/1114/1224326575203.html
http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2012/11/14/around-ftb-11/

Apparently my attempts at more than one link to the story get my comment sent to “moderation”.  So probably I have attracted the attention of the “authorities”.

“If you do not believe in God, then you are missing the profound beauty of life.”
What a stupid thing to write!
“If you open your soul to Him…”
There is no such thing as a “soul” and there is no evidence for Woden, Thor, Osiris, or any other gods.
“something constructive for the BENEFIT of his fellow human beings.”
I volunteer about 1000 hours per year, but 500 of that is during the Income Tax season.  Now is “slack ti
me”.

Funny how skeptics are never skeptical about their own propaganda

Why is it “necessary” to deny truth and beauty?  Why is denial of a huge portion of human reality, and in fact human evolution itself, considered to be better?

Just look at the difference between these beautiful, soulful pictures of Mt. Angel Abbey, vs the works of Earl and Bill S in their denial of all things spiritual.  It’s pretty starkly obvious what the loss brings.

A much better place to talk about Earl and Bill S.‘s concerns is:
https://www.facebook.com/MagisReasonFaith

That is, if they dare to take on the concept that all the best reason, all the best science, is inspired by and created by Faith- and you can’t remove faith without also removing reason.

You can go on reason and you can go on faith. Not can you have one without the other but they are diametrically opposed in most cases. Read “Age of Reason” by Thomas Paine for a good example of the differences between the two.

Bill S, go read some of Fr. Spritzer’s stuff.  He shows how Faith and Reason are two sides of the same coin- and you cannot have one without the other.  Abandon Reason, you abandon the Faith.  Abandon Faith, and you implicitly abandon Reason.  That’s why Thomas Paine and all of the New Atheists he inspired are so logically and ethically inconsistent, and support things like abortion and euthanasia- because they’ve abandoned Reason along with Faith.

“Abandon Reason, you abandon the Faith.  Abandon Faith, and you implicitly abandon Reason”

I think it is exactly the opposite.

Rely on Reason, you abandon Faith. Rely on Faith, you abandon Reason.

I have done the former. You have done the latter.  That’s why our sayings differ.

Bill S- the reason you think the opposite is precisely because you have abandoned reason, real reason, for the easy answers of pop philosophers who are significantly LESS intelligent than Catholic Doctors of the Church.

Fides et Ratio isn’t exactly a new concept.  It is one that has been tested and retested for more than 1500 years.  YOUR side has what, about 60 years of thought behind it, if that?  And it steals concepts from faith, like the Big Bang Theory, which is theological in origin, without bothering to credit the Church.

You can’t claim rationalism if you’re nothing but a plagiarist.

Now- I dare you to take your questions to Magis Center of Reason and Faith and see how far you get with your false dichotomy there.

Our Mission: To explore and share the close connection between reason and faith as revealed by new discoveries in physics and philosophy.

Thanks. I’ll check it out.

“That is, if they dare to take on the concept that all the best reason, all the best science, is inspired by and created by Faith- and you can’t remove faith without also removing reason.”
The stupid, it burns.
“It is one that has been tested and retested for more than 1500 years.”
In order to control people.
“like the Big Bang Theory, which is theological in origin”
Stupid, stupid, stupid.  Religion has NO evidence for its silliness.
“To explore and share the close connection between reason and faith as revealed by new discoveries in physics and philosophy.”
Stupid, stupid, stupid.

Earl- yes, the stupid does indeed burn, but it’s all coming from your idiocy and dare I say it, downright cowardice.  You don’t dare actually go to that link and engage with people smarter than you are who are theists.

May I suggest, my dear Wikipedia lover, that you go to:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lemaître

And tell me the vocation of the physicist who invented the Big Bang Theory?

Or is that too much for your incredibly fragile lack of faith and abandonment of reason?

“He worked with Arthur Eddington who initiated him into modern cosmology, stellar astronomy, and numerical analysis. He spent the following year at Harvard College Observatory in Cambridge, Massachusetts with Harlow Shapley, who had just gained a name for his work on nebulae, and at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, where he registered for the doctorate in sciences.”
Obviously he was an astronomer.
“In 1951, when Pope Pius XII tried to use his theory as a justification for Creationism, Lemaitre resented. While a devoted Roman Catholic, he was against mixing science with religion.”
“He died on 20 June 1966, shortly after having learned of the discovery of cosmic microwave background radiation, which provided further evidence for his intuitions about the birth of the Universe.”
Wow!  Evidence!
“This was because Lemaître: Was well acquainted with the work of astronomers, and designed his theory to have testable implications and to be in accord with observations of the time, in particular, to explain the observed redshift of galaxies and the linear relation between distances and velocities” etc.
Testable scientific theory!!!

This is interesting stuff. What I can’t understand about Pius XII is why he declared “ex cathedra” in 1950 that Mary was assumed into heaven. With all that was being learned about the universe, how could he apply papal infallibility to an ancient tradition that was made up when people actually believed that heaven was in the sky?  He couldn’t have picked a worse time and a poorer legend to flex his papal infallibility. Was he in his right mind or was he senile and no one could tell him otherwise?

Copied from the Internet:
“Stephen Woodworth, our local MP, introduced a private member’s bill to have the House study the question of whether a child is a “human being before the moment of complete birth”.

Of course, the whole thing is a scam—one that our local journalists couldn’t or didn’t see through.

Deep down, I don’t believe Woodworth is interested at all in this question. I think that what he really wants to do is ban abortion (in consonance with his Catholic duty), and he’s using this bill to try to achieve his goal through semantic games.

Suppose you’re building a house. You dig the foundation. Is it a house yet? You pour the concrete. Is it a house yet? You start framing the house. Is it a house yet? You put in the window frames. Is it a house yet?

When does it become a house?”

Earl, bad example.  Human is either living or dead (this is that soul part with which you struggle).  Houses aren’t living—they have no soul.  Human’s have life ... and those little innocent ones are developing at a rapid pace.  Additionally, the baby growing within the womb will absolutely be a baby the day it departs the womb and becomes the baby on the outside.  Your foundation, concrete, etc., could actually become something totally different from a house if you alter your plans, but that baby will be a baby.  You just need to recognize the various stages of life.  You probably have changed since you were an infant, a toddler, a boy, a young man, and so on.  But you have been blessed with life since conception—no one aborted you.  It does absolutely amaze me that someone could not believe in God.  I am awed by each of His creations.  Man has accomplished so little when look at the details of the body and how—gosh, I cannot even put it into words—only God, only the Supreme Being could have designed every part of us.  Earl, I’m glad I’ve entertained you by my belief.  I hope someday you’ll find Almighty God—Father, Son and Holy Spirit!

“It does absolutely amaze me that someone could not believe in God.  I am awed by each of His creations.  Man has accomplished so little when look at the details of the body and how—gosh, I cannot even put it into words—only God, only the Supreme Being could have designed every part of us.”

Couldn’t you just attribute all that to “Nature” and not call it a “Supreme Being”. I’m amazed at Nature but I don’t personify it unless I want to call it “Mother Nature” which would just be putting it more poetically. God has too much of a job description, gender, etc. to be taken seriously.

No sir.  Nature or what comes naturally is not in any way equal to Him Who creates.  There must be an original mover.  I have not the words to describe nor even to evangalize you both.  Go back and read the Great Books of the greatest minds.  You will find Truth.  Allow them to assist you along the way (and you will find The Way, The Truth…)  You may want to begin with studying Euclid…my daughter is on book 5 right now.

As for personifying, God, Himself, provided the gender.  Have you read the Old and New Testaments?  You may want to start if you haven’t.  With all of the time we have on this earth, we will have no excuse if we haven’t.  It is the Greatest read you will find, for in the beginning was the Word…and the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us.  Try to read and ponder daily.

Time to get on with life and its fullness.  I am sorry you both seemed to have missed out on formation.  Perhaps all we’re really trying to do is to encourage you now in self-formation.  You may find He requires all to take Him quite seriously, and for those of us who have/are, we are so very grateful…we give thanks to Lord (even Pilgrims did) and rejoice in Him, eternally.

Why not call the transcendent ultimate source what we have always called it Bill?  Why worship a creation instead of the creator?  What, in short, do you find so scary about recognizing a creator that you have to insist on censorship?

The sum total of man’s knowledge exists today. It didn’t exist when the Bible was written. You can’t possibly look back at the writers of the Old Testament and the New Testament and the Church Fathers and think that they knew more than we know now. Their stories are just that, stories.  Their ideas are just ideas. To take the word of primitive story tellers over modern science is intellectual suicide. They were probably among the most backward of people even in their own time. The Egyptians, Babylonians, Assyrians, Greeks, etc. were all more advanced than the writers of what we call Scripture.

If there is such a thing as an uncaused cause (which there doesn’t have to be), it is not best described by primitive writers. If there is a creator of the universe, it does not have a gender. It is a process not a person. It is a series of events not a designer. There is no goal of creation, no end purpose of design.

I know this doesn’t make it any easier to get up in the morning but that’s the truth.

Intelligence isn’t information Bill.  It’s what you DO with the information that counts.  To paraphrase another science fiction novel, it isn’t “Can we do it?” that should be the question, but rather “Should we do it?”

I think you’re letting your prejudice against primitives (how’s that for poetry?) get in the way of understanding what they were really talking about- not the what but the why, not the can but the should.

I can’t point to ANY so-called “advances” in technology or science that denied traditional morality yet ended up for the good of all.

Not a single one.  Replacing romantic love with lust is just the chief example of how modern man gets it very, very wrong.

And there is nothing in acknowledging a supreme creator that changes science one whit.  In fact, it takes acknowledging a supreme creator- a single reality, a single controlling and overarching transcendent system- to create science.

A random universe yields only random nature.  An intelligent creator is what is needed to create a universe where you can count on the law of gravity producing an acceleration of 32 feet/second/second on Earth.

Without God, nothing is certain.  With God, everything is.  And that is why I say you can’t be rational without faith.

“a single controlling and overarching transcendent system”

I do believe in that. But to give that the same name as the “God” of Judeo-Christian tradition is to tack on a whole other set of attributes that make little or no sense. Two thousand years of extra baggage for Christianity and longer for Judaism have made the real God unrecognizable.

“But to give that the same name as the “God” of Judeo-Christian tradition is to tack on a whole other set of attributes that make little or no sense. Two thousand years of extra baggage for Christianity and longer for Judaism have made the real God unrecognizable.”

I completely disagree.  It is in fact the only thing that makes the real God (and the universe thus created) recognizable.  There is a reason why the material sciences advanced in Europe and NOT in Turkey or China.

I think you need some comparative theology to understand the difference between the rational orthodox Judaeo/Christian God, and the heresies and paganism outside of orthodoxy.  There is a huge difference between the baggage laden “God who is always faithful” and the “Allah not bound or understandable by human reason” of Islamics or worse yet, the crazed interpretations of fundamentalists who have no rationality at all.

And worse still is the modern scientific philosophy of indeterminism- which makes no sense at all (and can’t make any sense because at the root, it is based on randomization of everything).

But Bill- one last question that I asked before:  What is it in the image of God as a loving father that you hate so much that you need to strip the entire universe of that image?  I think there, at the personal, is where you’ll find the lack of rationality that is currently blocking your faith.

There is no evidence of “the image of God as a loving father”. According to Freud that is based on some sort of psychological need in our infancy.  Evolution works on the principle of survival of the fittest. We have no paternal protection. We are at the mercy of nature.

Jesus taught his disciples to call God their father and to put their trust in Him. But to me that is just an appeal to wishful thinking by the writers of the New Testament which was written years later. I don’t recall Paul ever referring to God as a loving father.  I don’t think the Old Testament portrays the Lord as a loving father.

It can seem that the fortuitous chain of events that led to us being where we are today can be attributed to a loving father but it could just as easily be dumb luck. It had to happen somewhere in the universe, why not here?  It does seem beyond all odds and maybe there is an element of design. But that does not mean it is a loving father knowing and meeting all our needs. It is more Darwinian than that.

There is no evidence you’re willing to accept you mean.  There is in fact about 10,000 years worth of empirical observation of God as a Loving Father, but your prejudice and bigotry against people you judge to be “primitive” eliminates it.

Evolution is proof of God as a Loving Father directly- but you won’t look at that, choosing instead to believe an Austrian drug addict for your explanation of how the human brain works.

There is plenty of paternal protection- IF you are willing to look at it, but you’re not because to you, it’s just “primitive thinking” that should all be eliminated.

If you don’t see Paul or the Old Testament referring to God as a parent (along with several thousand other religions- after all, Catholicism doesn’t draw on the Bible alone for inspiration or evidence), then I’ve just got to say that you haven’t been looking.

Dumb luck isn’t a good enough explanation.  Dumb Luck doesn’t even explain why the sky is blue and not green.  Or why the sun appears to rise over the horizon in the morning.

It had to happen somewhere in the universe doesn’t explain the anthromorphic cosmological constants, or the beginning of time.

A Loving Father is not incompatible with Darwin at all.  It just means that it is a father that understands Tough Love.

I think what you are missing is that the natural is a subset of the supernatural.  That is, everything natural is supernatural in origin, if you follow the causal chain far enough (and understand that time doesn’t always flow unidirectional).

“It does absolutely amaze me that someone could not believe in God.”
That’s ok.  I am amazed that people believe in Bigfoot, UFOs, the Loch Ness monster, and other things (like the supernatural) for which there is no evidence.
“Man has accomplished so little when look at the details of the body”
Amazing what 3.5 billion years of evolution can accomplish!  But 99% of all species that every existed are now extinct.  And humans will follow that “law” some day.
“only God, only the Supreme Being could have designed every part of us.”
Especially the parts that are really, really, badly designed???  Hilarious nonsense showing complete ignorance of the power of evolution.
“Have you read the Old and New Testaments?”
Jerry Coyne started that process and gave up after a while.  The “monster” god of the old testament is crazy.  The new testament is a great fictional story, but who needs it?
“I’m glad I’ve entertained you by my belief.”
You and a million others.  It gets quite repetitious after a while.
“There must be an original mover.”
Hilarious.  Oops, I’ve heard this nonsense a million times before.
“I am sorry you both seemed to have missed out on formation.”
A completely nonsense sentence.  Formation?
“for in the beginning was the Word”
I doubt that.  The “Big Bang” was the effective “beginning” as far as we know at the present time.
“You may find He requires all to take Him quite seriously”
Hilarious.  Next you are going to mention “hell” as though there really was such a place?
“There is a reason why the material sciences advanced in Europe and NOT in Turkey or China.”
Stupid, stupid, stupid.
“What is it in the image of God as a loving father that you hate so much that you need to strip the entire universe of that image?”
It is very irrational to think that there really is a “God as a loving father”.
“There is no evidence you’re willing to accept you mean.”
Correct.
“There is in fact about 10,000 years worth of empirical observation of God as a Loving Father”
Nope.  That’s just an opinion.  There is no “evidence”.
“Evolution is proof of God as a Loving Father directly”
Nope.
“Dumb luck isn’t a good enough explanation.”
Define “dumb luck”.  Did an asteroid help kill off the dinosaurs 65 million years ago?  Did your “god” do that?  How do you know?  Is it in your book of mythology?  Your opinion is disregarded as irrational.
“everything natural is supernatural in origin”
Stupid, stupid, stupid.

Ah, our friend Earl is back.

Well, Earl, no evidence that an idiot like YOU will accept is not equal to no evidence- and the rest is just your own stupidity.  NOTHING you write causes me to even have the slightest bit of doubt in anything at all- because unlike your popular pseudoscience based only on carefully chosen data to support predetermined conclusions, God is certain.

“Evolution is proof of God as a Loving Father directly- but you won’t look at that, choosing instead to believe an Austrian drug addict for your explanation of how the human brain works.”

Ted,

Statements like this don’t lend any credence to your argument.  Evolution has nothing to do with God being a loving father. Freud was a trailblazer in modern psychology. The natural is not a subset of the supernatural. To me, there is no supernatural. Sorry I don’t follow your reasoning. You are a good person, but you have a very strange way of looking at things.

Bill, Sigmund Freud was a trailblazer in modern cocaine use.  I find most of his research to be extremely tainted by that fact, and useless towards understanding a mind not under the influence of psychedelic drugs.  The fact that modern psychiatry is based on the psychobable of Freudian Analysis is one of the major problems with considering psychiatry a science at all.

The only reason you think the supernatural doesn’t exist- is because for some reason we haven’t discovered yet, you very badly don’t want it to exist- you want to categorically ignore all the evidence for it.  Discover that- and your world will expand.  Avoid it, and you’ll keep following deranged minds like Freud and dare I say it, Earl.

“NOTHING you write causes me to even have the slightest bit of doubt”
Of course not.  You have been well and truly indoctrinated into your cult.
“you [TS] have a very strange way of looking at things.”
Strange?  Not really.  He is only Catholic.  Take Mormonism.  That’s strange.
“is because for some reason we haven’t discovered yet”
It would seem that you admit that there’s no - you know - actual evidence.
“you very badly don’t want it to exist”
WRONG.  This world would be a much more exciting place if the laws of nature were inexplicably violated on a regular basis!
“you want to categorically ignore all the evidence for it.”
WRONG.  There is no evidence for it that could be ignored.
“deranged minds”
like every atheist?  The “nones” are up to 20%?

It is obvious that Earl is crying out for us to pray for him.  He has had enough arguments, which he rejects.  What is now needed is for us to pour out our love in prayer.  I ask the good Catholics who frequent this site to join me in prayer for Earl’s soul.  (This request is not directed to anyone else.  If you would not be willing to pray for your enemies no response is necessary because this request is not to you.)

Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with you.  Blessed are you among women and blessed is the fruit of your womb Jesus.  Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners, now and at the hour of our death.

Amen

@Earl- I would say that you are the one who is well indoctrinated, using words like “actual”, by which you mean “natural”, to limit the evidence, because you are actually SCARED of the supernatural.  Your fear is evident in your line that a world where the laws of nature are violated regularly would be exciting ( excitement being a form of fear).  But if, like te church teaches, the natural is merely a subset of the supernatural, than we can expect no miracle will ever violate natural law, just our flawed understanding of natural law- because the very existence of natural law is in and of itself supernatural.

And YOUR lack of ability to see that, along with the low intelligence of the Nones, is part of the reason why I am Catholic.

Your side is just repeating heresies refuted over a thousan years ago.

“It is obvious that Earl is crying out for us to pray for him.”
Hilarious.  Prayer is useless.
“He has had enough arguments, which he rejects.”
You have no “arguments”.  You have no “evidence”.  There is no “debate”.
“prayer for Earl’s soul”
There is no such thing as a “soul”.
“where the laws of nature are violated regularly would be exciting”
Hilarious.  Such a world would be “unpredictable” in the sense that the laws of physics would be violated.  That would be “exciting”.
“the natural is merely a subset of the supernatural”
How stupid.  You have no “evidence” for such a silly “teaching”.
“just our flawed understanding of natural law”
Riiiiight.
“because the very existence of natural law is in and of itself supernatural.”
Your “word games” are not exciting.
“And YOUR lack of ability to see that”
What is there to “see”?  Nothing.  You have the ability of “wishful thinking”, but I do not.
“along with the low intelligence of the Nones”
Hilarious.  It is estimated that 80% or more of the members of the National Academy of Sciences are atheists.  In my opinion, that’s the “highest intelligence”.
“Your side is just repeating heresies”
Hilarious.  Define “heresy”.  Contrary to religious teachings?  Of course atheism is contrary to religious teachings.
“refuted over a thousan years ago.”
Hilarious religious nonsense.

Mother Mary we ask your blessing on Earl, who is reaching out in the only way he knows.  Help him to open his heart to your love that he might come to know your Son. 

Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with you.  Blessed are you among women and blessed is the fruit of your womb, Jesus.  Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners, now and at the hour of our death.

“who is reaching out in the only way he knows.”
Reverse psychology?  Writing something so foolish that I would be embarrassed to bother to reply?
“Help him to open his heart to your love that he might come to know your Son.”
Help me!  Help Me!  Hilarious nonsense.
“pray for us sinners”
Weird.  Asking Mary to pray for sinners.  This must be some sort of Catholic thing.

@Earl, let me know when you can pray the Litany of Tarski with honesty.  Got to walk before you can run, and until you admit your brain is not the entire universe, I see no way forward past your own arrogance of the ignorant.

Yes Earl, asking Mary to pray for sinners is “some sort of Catholic thing”. We do it frequently.  In fact, it is normal for us whenever we are praying for someone to ask our mother Mary to pray for them also.  Notice we ask Mary to “pray for US sinners” (emphasis added).  I acknowledge my own sinfulness whenever I ask Mary to pray for me, or for someone else.  And I know that her love is great enough to include you, just as she continues to love me in spite of my sinfulness.  No need at all for you to be embarrassed.  We are all very small before the greatness of God, but He welcomes us as a loving Father welcomes His young son.

(for Earl) Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with you.  Blessed are you among women and blessed is the fruit of your womb Jesus.  Holy Mary, Mother of God,  pray for us sinners now and at the hour of our death.

Rebecca D. ,
That was very sweet of you.Thank you for your faithfulness & prayers for those who post here.

I’m so glad you enjoyed your visit to Mt Angel Abbey. I grew up in Silverton, just next door to Mt Angel. My Poppy would take me up there as a child, and I was always enchanted. I remember watching the brothers/seminarians play soccer on the lower part of the grounds ... and as I grew up, my youth group started going there to walk the Stations. In July 2011, the day before my wedding, I spent the day up at Mt Angel praying and reflecting. It’s truly is beautiful place. The next day my new husband and I went up there to take some wedding. It gives me such joy to see others experiencing God’s beauty, love and peace at the Abbey.