Decommissioning the Missionaries

 When I was a young undergraduate student at a Pentecostal college in Florida, it was a different world then.  In some ways it was more sound, simpler, and it was honestly not necessarily bad.  In those years, I myself was a Pentecostal, and as part of my story now I want to share a couple of things I learned that would eventually place me on the road to being a devout Catholic. 

Back in the early 1990s, many Evangelicals still were looking for converts (they don't do so as much today), and of course that led to some rather crazy things.  For one thing, a technique that was pushed that I never completely understood or agreed with was popular then, and that was this whole idea of door-to-door evangelism.  Essentially, I learned later that while some of my classmates were sincere about their faith, they were taught to share it wrong.  There were groups of students who knocked on doors, handed out religious tracts on street corners to prostitutes and homeless derelicts, and many of them also tried to use rock music and sterile things aimed to evangelize kids to increase numbers.  This was called "soul winning," and to be honest it was not really all that effective.  Some of us - not just me - felt awkward about even doing this stuff, because it seemed like we were more like vacuum salesmen than future ministers.  It turns out that a lot of it was a numbers game - churches wanted those impressive numbers to show how "on fire" they were, and for those who didn't get the numbers, they were looked at as being either spiritually weak or needing revival.  In the ensuing decades, most mainstream Evangelicals began to abandon those practices, taking a more nuanced approach to gaining converts, and to be honest it actually helped them.  There are still some holdouts - many extreme Fundamentalists for instance - who swear by those worthless "soul winning" programs, but for the most part it was seen as a fruitless endeavor.  As a result, many of those Evangelical denominations are now in decline or they have plateaued, but to their credit they are focusing more on things that really matter, such as apologetics and discipling the people they actually have (that latter thing was something sorely neglected during the mass-conversion days - they were after numbers but not truly seeking to transform souls).  I have been wanting to tackle this for a long time, and now as a Catholic I can without apology.  So, let's begin. 

I recall during my junior year as an undergrad at a very prestigious Pentecostal university where I would graduate from that there was this focus on "missions."  I was a Missions major myself then, but in all honesty I found many of their efforts futile.  I remember one time for instance during a chapel service when the Intercultural Ministries group I used to be part of staged this really dumb presentation.  They marched out holding up signs of groups they wanted to "evangelize," and perhaps two of the most offensive I saw were "Byzantine Catholic" and "Coptic."  They were encouraging sheep-stealing to pump numbers!  I visited some of these with them when I was part of the Intercultural Ministries team, and I even rose to the rank of assistant leader of the team.  However, my focus when I went to another Christian church of some nature was to dialogue, not to convert - to me, these people were already Christians.  So, when we visited a Coptic or an Eastern-Rite Catholic parish for instance, I would wear my clerics as a licensed member of my Pentecostal denomination.   As a result, I made actual friends, and the people were more receptive to me.  I also participated in their Masses and liturgies as well (at least as much as I could, because being non-Catholic then I was not able to partake of Sacraments or anything like that).  This got me some angry reactions from some of the more staunch of my classmates, but others actually would look at me and marvel as to ask "how did you do that?"   My answer was always the same - these people who graciously let us visit and attend their liturgies were not some bunch of heathens, but they were our brothers and sisters in Christ and I saw them as such.  We did visit non-Christian religious groups too though - I recall going to a synagogue, a mosque, and a Buddhist temple for instance.  Some of the more overzealous classmates tried to convert these people in their own temples!  I never did - I was there to observe, dialogue, and learn about who they were, although I disagreed fundamentally with their belief systems.  That likewise gained me some respect too.  I even remember one time they had a group of students visiting an Episcopal church as a potential "mission field," and there are a couple of things to say about that.  For one, I of all people am not a fan of ECUSA, as that body has essentially apostatized from its original faith - the ones who preserved the Anglican tradition better were the Anglican Catholic Church I was once involved with, which was definitely Christian.  Secondly, although a very liberal denomination, Episcopalians still at least had a veneer of Christianity, and in all honesty back in that day many of the local Episcopal parishes were still quite sound and they had good pastors - one was a bit hyper-charismatic, but I was used to that then too. Therefore, I always wondered why on earth our "Intercultural Ministries" group was trying to sheep-steal from other churches they saw as different from them?  That conviction is one reason why I eventually dropped out of it.  By the time I was in my senior year of undergrad work, I had already converted to a conservative form of high-Church Anglicanism and was no longer Pentecostal, the fruit of a long journey via my work with the Convergence Movement then.  I graduated from that Pentecostal college an Anglican, and just over 4 years later I was received into the Catholic Church. Stuff like this is what led me on my journey, but there's more. 

On occasion, in our Missions classes on campus our main professor, a very jolly and energetic Assemblies of God missionary who had served many years in Zimbabwe and who also had a genuine spirit of Christ, would invite speakers to class.  Some were missionaries, others worked with different focus groups, and some were even nationals who for some reason or another were converted by the denomination this college was affilliated with.  One of those people really got my knickers in a bunch one time when he visited, as the guy was frankly a moron.  This man claimed to be a "missionary to the Amish and Mennonites" for heaven's sake!  He was based in Ohio, had no heritage in those movements, and lest one forgets, these Anabaptist groups are the ones that many Pentecostals and Baptists alike claim as their spiritual ancestors.  Yet, this ding-a-ling, who for some reason obtained ministry credentials from the same denomination which our university belonged to, felt like all the Amish were "going to hell" and he felt a "burden" to save them - this was common language used by people like this, especially if they had some sort of vendetta against a group of people or another religious tradition. Normally, I listened to these people respectfully when they came to class, and at times I even showed an avid interest in them, but for some reason this guy rubbed me wrong - his spirit was not genuine, and he seemed to have some kind of axe to grind.  He put me in mind of another professor we had that year whom I will talk about briefly next, as another Catholic apologist named Tim Staples had a similar encounter with this guy. 

Dr. Andres Carrodeguas - a native of Cuba, a former Catholic priest in Spain at one point, and although a brilliant man, there was always something a little off about the guy.  Oh, he was friendly enough, but in his class a lecture could easily go off into some anti-Catholic rant.  This guy originally worked with Jimmy Swaggart (also known for rabid and ignorant anti-Catholicism) and he was the guy responsible for translating some of Swaggart's religious writings into Spanish. Dr. Carrodeguas served as what was called a "Missionary in Residence" during my junior year, and naturally I took one of his classes as part of my required coursework for the program I was in.  Initially, I didn't have much of an opinion about the guy - he was somewhat quiet on campus, and he did have a polite smile and cordial greeting when you would pass him in the hall. But, underneath, he was a bitter, hate-filled man who despised even the word "Catholic," and given the opportunity he would launch into a tyrade at the drop of a hat. The back story on him was that he was indeed a Catholic priest at one time - I think he was either Benedictine or Jesuit, I can't recall - and a combination of two things caused him to leave the Church. The first I am somewhat empathetic about, as he talked about some Catholic religious orders incorporating things like New Age spirituality and religious syncretism, as well as espousing Liberation Theology, into their practices.  This really shook him (and understandably so) and I feel for his experience in that regard - I have seen some of that nonsense masquerading as "Catholic" too but it is not true Catholic faith, I will tell you that right now.  His disenchantment with that sort of stuff was justified, but instead of trying to understand that those things were a poor example of true Catholic faith, he began to reject everything Catholic and I understand he even may have been in touch with the con man from the Chick comics, Alberto Rivera.  Instead of transforming him, this new hatred of everything Catholic turned him into a very bitter man who rejected even God's grace, and he became basically a very hyper-fundamentalist version of Pentecostal, which may also have led to his work with Jimmy Swaggart, as a charlatan like Swaggart would eat up that garbage like a maggot in a rotting carcass. That hatred even extended to other Christians who he felt "looked Catholic," including Eastern Orthodox, Lutherans, Anglicans, and even staunch evangelical Reformed ministers like Dr. D. James Kennedy.  The "testimonies" of other anti-Catholic Fundamentalists like him were abundant and resonated ad nauseum from pulpits, religious TV, and even the occasional chapel service.  However, I don't think that was the only reason Carrodeguas left the priesthood - it was odd that less than a year after he left the priesthood officially he actually was married.  Maybe I am reading too much into that, I don't know, but it was somewhat odd that he would renounce the Church and then end up married a short time later - what was that story??  We will never fully know what really makes men like Carrodeguas tick, but I recall when I was listening to Tim Staples one time about his encounter with Carrodeguas back when the latter was still an instructor at Jimmy Swaggart's Bible school in Louisiana.  Tim, who had been raised a Baptist and later was part of the same Pentecostal denomination my college was affiliated with, had a rather tense encounter himself with our man Carrodeguas when he came to the decision to become Catholic while a student still at Swaggart's college.  Upon hearing of Tim's embrace of the Catholic faith, the powers-that-be at JSBC decided to sic Carrodeguas on him, and his account of that meeting will make the hair stand up on your arms.  Carrodeguas actually started to move to the boundary of violence with Tim, and when finally deciding it was a lost cause, he condemned Tim to hell (a classic arbiter of salvation move) and then snapped "You didn't become Catholic - you are Catholic!"  Tim actually saw that outburst - which was meant in a malicious way by Carrodeguas - as a compliment.  To Tim (and I know the feeling myself) this was a badge of honor meant as an insult.  Today, Carrodeguas is retired and in Florida I believe still, but he pops up on social media every so often.  In his final months at the college I was at, he was censured a couple of times by the department chair who thought he was going too far, as the college I went to was very much Pentecostal but not as Fundamentalist-leaning as Swaggart's school in Louisiana was.  Many of the other professors there were actually cordial with Catholics, as some had known many during the years of the Charismatic Renewal, and others were ecumenically active and were on practically a first-name basis with a couple of local priests. So, although Carrodeguas found some fertile ground for his vitriol among the students, he was becoming a bit of a thorn in the side to the school administration, as they tended to be more nuanced about ecumenical relations and frankly Carrodeguas was a spectacle to them.  In time I made my pilgrimage to Rome too, and I actually wrote Tim about my story - I never heard anything from him about it, but hopefully he read it and maybe I can meet him someday and discuss in person.  In summary here with this part of my discussion, anti-Catholicism is not about evangelism, as a deeper agenda often underlies it, and people who act like "soul winners" in reality despise Catholics - to them, a Catholic is a hell-bound sinner who worships the Pope and Mary (neither of which any Catholic I know of does, and I definitely have never done that as a Catholic myself), and thus is an object of ridicule and contempt, all in the name of  "reaching them for Jesus" of course.  Problem is, many Catholics who get hit with that sort of hatred from somebody will rightly have nothing to do with that person, because they know the intent and it isn't anything about loving them or saving their soul - it is about a personal vendetta a Fundie has against anyone they view as different from them.  And, that leads me into some closing thoughts.

Much of what went on years ago in Evangelicalism in the name of "soul winning" and "witnessing" was never about transforming someone's life - it was about one of two things.  First, it was to curry favor with their religious group, as the more "souls" they "saved" made the church look good and also was like a sales award.  Secondly, some who engage in those activities were not doing so out of love - as a matter of fact some individuals had an axe to grind and they wanted to take it out on any Catholic or anyone else whom they deemed somehow "reprehensible."  I talked a couple of weeks ago about another view of hell that no one ever thinks of, and I want to remind people the purpose of hell again.  Hell is not someplace God is itching to throw us into - as a matter of fact, he doesn't want to, and he never will.  Hell is a place we send ourselves to, as it essentially is willful separation from God.  The imagery of the lake of fire is scary enough, but the real terror of hell is the isolation the person who goes there will feel one day.  Many supposedly religious people are in danger of this, in that they willfully exclude people who don't think and believe exactly like them, and in doing so they think they have superseded the Holy Spirit.  In time, even the person of Christ will end up falling short for them, although they will never come out and say so.  Therefore, if they do not repent and transform before they die one day, God is going to give them exactly what they want - total separation.  They may even at first think that they have made it to "heaven" as it may even look beautiful to them, but then reality will set in, and the fire will be the eternal loneliness and isolation they will have for all eternity.  So no, while the debate over whether or not hell is a literal lake of fire is a valid debate and people do so now, hell is still real, it is eternal, and the worst part of it is not some white-hot magma-like lake somewhere - the worst part of hell is complete separation from God, and the torment of the soul which will result from that.  Many overly-zealous Fundamentalists need to have a reality check about this, because if they don't grow up and have true transformation through supernatural grace, they will face a grim future in a place they really don't want to be but that they asked for. This is somewhat of a revolutionary way to view hell, but in all honesty that is what the Church has taught about it for centuries - we focus on the fire, but perhaps we need to think of what sent us there, and it may not even be a heinous sin.  Hatred and exclusion of others in this life because we had a conflated view of ourselves is the thing that will send us there probably the quickest, as it is God giving us what we hollered about.  This is why he says in Scripture that not everyone who says "Lord, Lord" will enter the Kingdom.  He was not just talking about apostate Episcopalians either; this applies to religious Fundamentalists too.  Let this sink in as you rethink what you have been taught about the reality of hell.

Now, that does not mean that we are so open that we have no ground to stand on either - that type of Christianity is sterile and dead in all honesty, and many who embrace that would be better off as atheists in all honesty.  There is a Tradition, a set body of teaching, and universal law that sets boundaries regarding morality and ethics, and we need to be mindful of that too. Those standards are non-negotiable in all honesty.  However in living out the belief we have, we must also remember that the best witness is a real witness - if you spout a bunch of religious jargon to people, then you are putting yourself under a microscope.  But, if you quietly live out your faith with both conviction as well as making living your faith as natural as breathing or eating, people will notice.  Actions often speak louder than words, and it is possible to be very conservative religiously while having just that quiet witness of living your life - people will eventually come to you then, and you don't have to wave a huge Dake's Bible around and hand out religious tracts trying to get people "saved."  You won't need to in all honesty.  The best testimonies I know as a matter of fact are not testimonies full of religious jargon uttered in a sanctimonious tone - rather, they are testimonies of people being real, quietly living out their faith, and then when they are approached about it they can tell their story to inspire others.  That is the true act of evangelization. 

I am sure I probably rambled too long, but some things have to be said, and I felt seriously that this was one of them.  Thanks for bearing with me, and will see you next time. 

Going In Circles??

 I have been very prolific writing obviously this summer, as there is much to say.  I am catching up on some programs I wanted to watch, as they relate to the whole idea of origins, and I wanted to revisit a couple of things. We will launch into that now.

In the early 2000s, a mockumentary program called The Future is Wild was aired on Discovery, and I found it quite interesting.  To give a synopsis of the series, it envisions a world at 5 million, 100 million, and 200 million years in the future, and it is of course based on evolutionary biology.  To be honest, it is good science fiction, and I have watched it now several times.  But, here's the big mistake it makes - it is basing its premise on evolutionary biology, and when watching the series it becomes glaring at how inconsistent it is.  So, first let us talk about evolutionary biology.

According to the traditional Darwinian scheme of evolution, life evolves from lower forms to higher forms.  The problem with The Future is Wild is that it is not consistent with that narrative.  For one thing, it seems to have a more cyclical view of time rather than a linear view, and that basically says that evolution keeps repeating like a karmic cycle over and over.  For instance, at the 5 million year mark, the earth is supposedly in another ice age, just like it supposedly entered 5 million years ago.  However, this time instead of mammoths and other creatures, the primary species are a wolverine on steroids called a "snow stalker," a large killer bird that looks eerily similar to the ancient terror bird called a "Carakiller," and HUGE aquatic birds (that are kind of cute honestly) that supplant extinct whales called "Gannettwhales."   Other creatures in this time period include an underground flightless quail called a "Spink," and odd-looking armored rodents called "Rattlebacks."  I want to first address the names they use - nothing overly creative, and it is just odd and very funny.  Granted, the "spinks" and the other critters can be kind of cute, but it ain't gonna happen despite what some "expert" who has been puffing on too much medical marijuana says.  Another aspect of this 5 million year timeline is that the last primates - a species of South American monkey called a "Babukari" - are monkeys!  I mean, in all seriousness, if evolution were so dependable shouldn't a scenario more like a real-life Planet of the Apes be playing out instead of monkeys getting hunted by 7-foot killer birds??  Seriously, if apes are still evolving, then chimps and gorillas should develop cognitive skills at that point, correct?  The creators of the program say that there was a mass extinction that killed off everything else, and these represent more "resilient" species that survived and evolved.  But, it gets stranger as the show goes on, because you will never believe what will develop superior intelligence, and we'll get to that here in a bit. 

At 100 million years, all of the ice caps have melted, and there are tepid warm seas that are only a dozen yards deep, and in them are these monster jellyfish colonies called "Ocean Phantoms," which prey on a 400-lb sea slug called a "Reef Glider."  Then, there is the Bengal Swamp, upon which roam huge 120-ton tortoises called "Toratons" and also have land-dwelling octopi called "Swampus."  In the rivers a huge electric catfish called a "Lurkfish" fries its victims with electrical charges before it eats them (in this case, it seems to have an affinity for "swampus" flesh - the catfish likes calamari on the menu apparently!).  Then, this is where the last of the mammals supposedly end their legacy too - the last living mammal is a hamster-sized critter called a "Poggle" that is farmed by monster spiders as a food source - yeah, OK!  As you can see, these "experts" had a lot of time on their hands, and when you watch the extended British version of the show, they have these scientists they consult, including a weird guy who looks like a rogue Mennonite by the name of Dr. Bruce Tiffney, and when I researched him come to find out he is more noted for a Gandalfesque wizard hat he likes to wear rather than publishing peer-reviewed work.  The caliber of "experts" they chose for this was astounding, and not in a good way - this show is definitely not meant to be taken seriously as some sort of scientific gospel, but it is creative science fiction.  But, hold onto your Tiffney wizard hats, because it gets even more bizarre as time progresses!

At the 200 million year mark, the earth is one huge continent surrounded by a huge ocean, and while most of the planet is a baking, dry desert, the coastal areas tend to be rain forests, and this is where it gets even more interesting.   For one thing, now that all the birds are dead the fish are flying in the sky, but wait till you hear what the most intelligent creature in that time period is - a squid!  These producers of this series must really have a calamari fetish, because the future rain forest has two species of land-loving squid roaming it.  The first is a six-ton monster called a "Megasquid," which looks like an eight-legged love child of an elephant and a shitaki mushroom.  The second is a little creature that lives in the trees called a "Squibbon," which supposedly is slated to evolve into the next intelligent life on earth. So, in the eyes of these experts, squid will take over the planet in 200 million years!  If I were them, I would use a less-spicy marinara sauce with my calamari when going to Olive Garden, because these guys are having some odd dreams.  

So, apes evolved into humans, yet apes are going to be facing extinction in 5 million years due to being the top menu items for giant killer birds in the Amazon?  And, mammals will die out in 100 million years, with the last one being a cute hamster being herded by huge spiders?  And, squid then become sentient beings in 200 million years?  Someone really got a few things mixed up in that story in all honesty, and thankfully God has already revealed to us his plan, and it doesn't have a thing to do with us being replaced by squid.  The circle-back mentality of the evolutionists who came up with this puts me in mind of Biden's former press secretary Jen Psaki.  It shows that evolution is inconsistent with origins, and that these guys who promote it cannot even get on the same page.  That being said, let's consider something else I watched in another documentary.

The topic of this one is a creature called an entelodont.  An entelodont was a carnivorous prehistoric pig that terrorized much of the world in the period called the Oligocene, but in recent years evolutionary biology is so flawed that it cannot decide what in hell an entelodont was, so now they have it descended from whales instead of being a prehistoric pig.  To be honest, many of these creatures they kept saying existed millions and millions of years ago keep turning up in human memory somehow, and that is what probably drives some of these self-proclaimed "experts" nuts.  For instance, as I may have mentioned before, the entelodont matches a creature in Greek mythology called the Erymanthian boar, and as for dragons, they are now known by another name - dinosaurs.  Too many accurate depictions of ancient art portraying different species of dinosaurs exist to not think they are older, but they seem to be a more recent phenomenon.  This is where evolutionary biology needs to be rejected for a more theological/philosophical-based approach called euhemerism.  A euhemerist is a person who sees in myths and legends some reality, and as a Christian euhemerist, I would view many legends and myths in the following way - a core truth somewhere lies at the base of the myth, and much of the embellishment over the years has corrupted the truth to the point that when the Enlightenment came, it rejected mythology because the embellishments were all they saw and not the core conviction that inspired the myth.  This is what I believe is the case with ancient creatures such as dinosaurs, entelodonts, and dare I say it, even Jonah's giant fish - who can deny that the possibility exists, for instance, that the fish that swallowed Jonah could have been a megalodon or something?  And, that leads me to some conclusions I have come to which make both the Bible make more sense as well as unraveling some of the inconsistency of Darwinian evolution. 

In reading the Bible, there are passages we often dismiss as being mere allegory when they may actually be an eyewitness account.  Jonah's story is obviously one of those - the well-worn identification of "Jonah and the Whale" is something we have heard countless times, and some things about it never made sense until you start looking at it from a more euhemerist perspective.  The Biblical account specifically says "fish" and not whale, for one thing, and even translators schooled in ancient Biblical languages see it.  Ancient people were not as stupid as we sometimes think they were either - I think a cursory look from an ancient man at a whale would make it evident to him that it is not just a fish, and they knew the difference.   We are sometimes arrogant in our lens of history in that we assume that man was somehow stupider in ancient times than we are now, but in reality, man has always had the same intelligence but maybe hadn't been able to dissect information like we did, but it does not mean they were stupid or lacked something.  Ancient man described what he saw based on how he could express it, and that is why if he were to come across a sauropod dinosaur or even a monster like T-Rex, it would be easy to conclude that such a creature fit the description of a dragon or other beast.  Man also could always tell the difference between a shark and a whale too, and I am sure early man understood the shark as a fish and not anything else.  Therefore, if the biggest fish that ever existed could swallow a man like a sesame seed, who is to say that Jonah didn't encounter something like a megalodon?  When we start reading Scripture like that, it starts to make sense.  And, the post-Flood change in the atmosphere - less oxygen - would have also resulted in reduced lifespans for people and reduced sizes of animals to conserve oxygen.  Basic biology and physics explain the Flood perfectly then, as well as its effects years later.  A lot more could be said about this, but you get the idea.  In other words, true science confirms true Revelation, just like the "Two Books" idea of both Aquinas and Bonaventure confirm. 

In closing, this would merit more discussion, and you will see it once I revise my Genesis study into its own book.  Years of studying these types of things has brought me to a place both scientifically and theologically.  From a scientific perspective, the overwhelming evidence is that patterns in nature point to a design, an order, and that would be called Intelligent Design, or ID.  From a theological perspective, one looks at the Genesis account, and it plainly says GOD created everything, so this is a theological position called Biblical Creationism.   The two are not mutually exclusive, but rather complimentary.  And, it really makes the circular karmic cycle of Darwinian evolution look more silly.  Thanks for allowing me to share, and looking forward to visiting again soon. 

Object of Worship

 I wanted to reflect on something interesting today, as I was reading our parish bulletin I got yesterday at Mass and it inspired something.  I often get these little sparks of inspiration by bulletins or homilies at Mass, and this one is no exception.  If your parish is like the one I attend, it is standard that the parish priest does a short reflection at the beginning of the bulletin for parishioners to sort of ruminate on.  Many parishioners won't read it of course, and in many cases bulletins end up in the trash can after Mass, but I have kept every bulletin since I first became a Christian in 1986, and that is almost 40 years worth of bulletins I have in several GBC-bound volumes.  I consider church bulletins a documentation of personal history, and like calendars, my journal books, and other things, I save them because they may come in handy one day.   And, unlike many parishioners in a typical parish, I do read mine and glean what I can.  The reason Fr. Michael's reflection got my attention this week though is that he confirmed something I have said many times over the years, and that is why I want to expand on his thoughts and add some of my own. 

Fr. Michael noted the writings of a major figure of American Catholic history, Archbishop Charles Chaput, the former Archbishop of Philadelphia.  Archbishop Chaput was a very orthodox and insightful writer whose material I am quite familiar with, and the fact our parish priest utilized him in this reflection also reaffirms the fact that we are going to a sound, orthodox parish too.  There are two points Fr. Michael summarized from his reading of Archbishop Chaput, and they are this:

1. Idolatry is the oldest and most persistent sin of humanity

2. There is no such thing as an actual "unbeliever," in that the person who claims this is a particular kind of believer in something.

A third point made is this:

3. Despite man's many futile attempts over the centuries, man is not a god, and no window-dressing of ideology will make him one.

The reason this is important has to do with an assertion I made some time back, and that is that there is no such thing as a true atheist.  Man has a capacity to worship, and something has to be the object of that worship, even if it self.  It is a desire God has placed into mankind to draw him closer to him, but sin and concupiscence have corrupted that to the degree that man denies the true God and wants to find a substitute, which is always inferior.  A substitute object of worship, even if it is the self, is idolatry, which is why it is the oldest and most persistent sin.  That was what the lie of the serpent in the Garden was about in Genesis 3 - trying to usurp the rightful place of a true God with an inferior substitution.  So, what does this look like then?  Let me give a short illustration.

When many people think of idolatry, they think of a statue of some grotesque deity that sits prominently in a temple that you pray and sacrifice to.  But, is it though?  The focus of idolatry doesn't have to be a literal idol, but it can be something else that grabs one's attention.  For some, it is mind-altering addictions, for others it is money and success.  For still others, it is their own reflection in the mirror.  For others still, it is a misguided passion for something - a sport, a hobby, or anything else that a person devotes a huge portion of their money, attention, and other resources to.  In Fr. Michael's reflection, he deals with another more insidious type of idolatry, one that is not seen as much, and based on his reading of Archbishop Chaput's writings, he identifies this as the heresy of gnosticism.  

Gnosticism is perhaps the world's oldest heresy, and it is also one of the most insidious ones too.  There are even instances when it gets intermingled with Christian theology.  At the core of this doctrine is the idea that there is a special, privileged "knowledge" that promises to create a new man, a utopian society, and self-sustaining, self-redemptive humankind.  It is the oldest lie in the book in all honesty, as it goes back to the serpent's lie in Genesis 3 - "Oh, just eat this and you will become God!"  Gnosticism can be religious in nature, or it can be window-dressed in secularism, but it is still what it is at its core - a deception.  Manifestations of it range from strains of it being wrapped in religious language all the way to commercial jingles, but it is all about the same thing.  Let me take a couple of religious examples that have infected Christianity for centuries, and then I want to briefly address their secular equivalents. 

There are two polarizing forms of gnosticism that manifest in Christianity at times, and both of them are equally bad.   One comes from Fundamentalism, and it is one I dealt with a couple of weeks back.  This says that we are the "chosen people," and only through reciting our formulae, believing our way, and doing what we say will you get true salvation.  It excludes anyone who doesn't follow the script, and as I said earlier, the end result for someone who holds this view is complete isolation in a hell of their own making that God allows them to have.  This type of Christianized gnosticism entails a language - annoying phrases like "in the natural" and a denial of the created order as God's gift to mankind, usually wrapped in some sanctimonious Elizabethan English phraseology, characterize such gnosticism.  It is in contradiction to what God said himself about creation, and it also violates what God was trying to teach Peter in Acts 10 with the descending sheet - "do not call unclean what I have cleansed."  People who hold to such convictions are generally wrapped up in a form of "humble pride," in that they think they are the "spiritual elite" and that everyone else is lost and hellbound because they don't believe exactly the same thing.  They have made themselves a god in their own eyes and in doing so, they slap the true God in the face.  This type of Fundamentalist gnosticism is an egregious sin and should be soundly rejected by any orthodox Christian, because it is not truly Christian.  

A second type of Christianized gnosticism comes from your typical televangelist who teaches this whole "word of faith" nonsense, also called "name it and claim it."  They too claim some "special revelation" and use the trappings of wealth to embody it as evidence that it is true.  In reality though, what this does is deny that there was a Fall, and the reality of sin and death after that fall.  It says that if someone is poor, has an illness (I have even heard people who have just a cold condemned as a matter of fact), or if any other challenge in life happens, then that person must not be a "true believer" and therefore lacks faith.  This is a cruel and narcissistic spirituality that denies reality, shatters empathy, and strikes at the core of Jesus's own teachings.  And, what is sad is that it is not just outright "word of faith" proponents that talk like this, but it has infected Evangelicalism on a wider scale.  To give an example, let me tell you about what happened to me once.  As you all may know, I faced a serious set of challenges last year that really almost caused me to lose everything.  At the time, I worked as a freelance paralegal for a guy who professed Christianity, but his true colors came out when someone was faced with a challenge.  Although this guy did end up lending me some funds that helped, he did so in a condescending, cold manner that did not reflect true Christianity - he mocked my doctoral degree (which I had just earned) and said that I didn't need to rely on anyone because a "real man" deals with things themselves and doesn't seek help.  Honestly, I never saw anything about that in the Gospels, but this is where unfortunately Evangelicalism meets an extreme form of "Christian nationalism" and the result is not pretty. Although a person like this prays and "acts spiritual," at their core they are secularist and view the world through a quasi-gnostic lens that strips them of any compassion and empathy.  Fact is, sometimes we face challenges in life, and while it is good to have a fighting spirit to overcome those, at the same time it is not a bad thing to ask for help when we need to, because we are still limited in our capacity as human beings and none of us has all the answers to everything.  In all honesty, because this particular employer chose to kick me while I was down, I no longer work with or associate with him, and I am hoping he is somehow dealt with by the Holy Spirit to change his attitude because based on his own story he should know better.  This guy was in prison, and he forgets if it wasn't for the compassion and encouragement of others, he may not be where he is today either.  Attitudes like this are one reason I am not an Evangelical Protestant myself anymore, as the glaring inconsistencies of a lot of so-called Christians were just a little much to deal with.  It is also one reason why over the years I have stressed the importance of the personal testimony and to never forget where one comes from, because it gives true humility and always reminds us that had it not been for the grace of God working in us, our lives may have ended up a lot different.  And, that is also the message we should witness to the struggling, and unless we do, we miss a vital part of our Christianity. 

The late Orthodox theologian Fr. Alexander Schmemann once said that "secularism is the absence of man as a worshipping being."  I understand what he said, but that isn't the full picture - I would say that secularism is the misplacing of true worship, as it makes something inferior and subject to decay the focus of worship instead of God.  And, it does so in that quasi-gnostic way that Fr. Michael points out - it often entails some "secrets to success" and "privileged information" that the one who possesses it thinks they have special status for possessing.  There are no true "secrets to success," but rather success is based on two things - commitment and perseverance.  The third factor - total submission to God - is what makes both of these possible.  As the late Catholic theologian Romano Guardini notes, the whole "gateway petition" to the prayer Jesus taught us, the Our Father, is four words "Thy will be done."  There is no secret here and no magic elixir - rely on God, and use what abilities he gave us, and success happens.  What will this success look like?  It is different for everyone.  It may not entail great wealth, or an exalted position of power - as a matter of fact, success for some may be just coming to terms with something that makes their life fuller.  Again, there is no mystery, no secret, and no formula - it is spelled out plainly and given freely in the words of Holy Scripture.  God created us all as unique individuals, and following his will for our lives is what is key.  And, our destiny and objectives are not going to be identical to others, nor should be try to measure up to a bar set for someone else.  Rather, we use some of their stories to maybe inspire us to reach the place God wants us to be in.  

Looking at it from that perspective, let's go back to "object of worship."  It is so easy in our own lives to get so caught up in agendas and the demands of life that we become slaves to routine and often do so at the expense of our devotion to God.  Being successful in life is not a bad thing at all, and it is something worthy to strive for.  But, when the object of our success is not God and is focused on something else, it becomes an object of worship, an idol.  It is this we need to guard against, because in the pursuit of worldly success we need to remember that this is not our "forever home," and once we die that success will have completed its cycle.  It won't mean a lot once we are lying in a casket or a cremation urn somewhere, and although in itself this type of success is not necessarily a bad thing, it is how we prioritize it that makes the difference. We are not God - God is God, and like Fr. Michael says, no secret knowledge will change that.  Man was created as a worshipping being, but it is the focus of our worship that matters, not the fact we do worship.  A true atheist, as noted earlier, doesn't exist - an atheist is ultimately a worshipper of self if anything, because they become the ultimate authority they answer to.  So, despite how much someone who claims to be atheist says they don't believe in God, our question is "what god don't you believe in?"  The person calling themselves atheist therefore is either by definition non-Christian or possibly even passionately anti-Christian, but they don't deny a "god" per se - they just worship either one of their own making, or themselves.  For a self-proclaimed atheist to claim otherwise would be fooling themselves. 

Thank you for allowing me to share today, and looking forward to sharing more with you again soon. 

Reflection on Family

 I am wanting to begin to talk about a proverbial elephant in the room which has been there for some time, and there are many complexities and levels to it that make it somewhat challenging to talk about.  The issue of course is family, specifically my family.  The idea here is not to be accusative toward anyone or to even disparage any members of my own family, but I want to just address a few things that need to be clarified.  

To begin with, a few points need to be established.  First, criticism of family attitudes and family members by no means indicates hatred or rejection, but at times they may become serious enough to merit discussion.  Second, no one is perfect, and as we live in a fallen world, mistakes happen and you try to deal with them and move on.  Third, the present-day society we live in is so atomized that often close family ties we had in the past no longer exist, and with many older members dying off, it means that some younger family members don't know each other as well as they should.  That is tragic also.  Finally, the passing of older family members may be a mixed blessing.  On one hand, their demise means a connection to the legacy is gone now, and it also may indicate that some valuable family stories may be lost for eternity if they are not recorded in some fashion.  On the other hand though, some older generations tended to harbor some bad things that maybe their descendants don't reflect or share, and perhaps a lot of the tension and division in many families may be due to the actions of those older members.  Given that is the case, the smart thing is to to do the old "digest the meat and spit out the gristle" approach to their legacies.  I am going to try to navigate this with the delicacy of a surgeon's scalpel, but for some of my relatives who read this, it may not be pleasant, yet it needs to be said. 

I feel that the last point - the legacies of deceased older family members - needs to be addressed first.  Over the years in our own family (especially on my mother's side), there has been a drifting apart in our relationships.  At the present time for instance, where I live in Baltimore I perhaps may have a dozen to 20 blood relatives within 15 miles of where I am sitting at home right now, but I neither hear nor see anything of any of them.  Some of these are cousins I haven't even seen since I was a kid myself - almost 50 years! - yet they are within a few miles of me.  Then, with a few of them, when I do actually talk to them on social media or something, they make some nasty jokes and inappropriate chatter that I cannot really understand - some of these people haven't seen me in 50 years, yet they make comments like that?  I have come to the conclusion that limited communication with some of those people may be in my best interest, because they have made it clear that they don't really value me as a family member, and do not have a desire to do so.  Therefore, in those cases it is better to just get on with my own life and let them get on with theirs.  If they want to visit or talk, I conclude, they know where I am.  

One other thing my mother's family has been particularly problematic with is for some reason they like to lay blame for whatever beef they had with my mother on my shoulders.  In all honesty, I have little to do with it, and whatever issues they had with Mom or anyone else they should have addressed with her instead of projecting it on me.  One thing they always love to do as a matter of fact is quite egregious to me, and it's taking a lot to even talk about it here.  In her younger years, Mom liked to drink, and she used to do so quite frequently.  Unfortunately, that gave her a reputation with some in the family.  However, that was 40 years ago, and they failed to understand what Mom was like in her later years.  Mom was by no means perfect, but I knew her better than a lot of her critics among family.  Beginning about 40 years ago, Mom began to get focus in her life as she took on a role as a live-in caregiver for elderly folks, and not only did she find it rewarding but she also gained a great degree of personal growth from it.  And, in all honesty, the families of the people she cared for ended up being more like family to me personally than my blood relatives did - I am still on good terms with many of them today, and I have a lot of fond memories of them.  In the years that followed, Mom ended up working very successfully as a CNA once she moved to Florida, and even after she retired in her early 60s, she continued to keep a more disciplined life than she used to.  Even as her health declined, I was there 3 years ago before she passed and witnessed her coming to terms with things in her life and making peace for herself, and in all honesty I was quite proud of her for doing so.  The last 10 years or so of her life, as a matter of fact, were spent staying with me, and I took care of her when no one else would.  During that ten years, Mom and I talked a lot about many things, and I have fond memories of sitting over coffee and just talking with her - there are days now I miss those moments.  When Mom finally succumbed to heart disease in March 2022, she was I believe in a good place, and the closure I got from that was that I was there when no one else was for her.  I got a lot of flak from other judgmental relatives for that over the years, but you know something, I don't regret a thing.  Everyone needs someone with them, and Mom had me and I was happy to be there for her.  She was able to leave this life with a good home, and I made sure she was put to rest in the way she would have wanted.  And, any imperfections she had, in my opinion, died with her.  I had some rather mean-spirited relatives of hers saying stupid things when she passed, including those stupid family rumors that she drank herself to death, etc.  Many of these people did not know her, and they had no right to really say anything.  But, their reckoning is coming too one day, and God help them when it does. 

Unfortunately, I cannot say the same for other relatives.  I had another relative pass away earlier last year, and a distant cousin who I never met in person acted very judgmental about it.  This particular relative is into family history, and they contacted me years ago based on that.  However, over the years they have also become sort of critical and condescending when I interact with them on social media, and despite never even meeting me in person, this individual all of a sudden has an opinion about me.  Having practiced as a paralegal as well as having a Ph.D. now, both of those have taught me a couple of things about how information is communicated.  For one, research and due diligence needs to be exercised before coming to any conclusion.  A good paralegal for instance who knows how to research the facts of a case can make or break an attorney's presentation of the case.  Also, from my doctoral education I learned that primary sources are key to establishing sound theses, and without the primary source material one cannot exercise good scholarship. Some family members would do well to exercise similar techniques when they open their mouths to repeat gossip and hearsay. I love how some relatives - these being 4th and 5th cousins - like making snap judgments about me and others without knowing a damn thing about anything.  The relative in question was noted in life for being a pathological liar, and they had this distant cousin fooled for many years with their interpretation of things, and the distant cousin was frankly too lazy to do due diligence and get the whole story.  To this day, that same cousin seems to be in judgment of me, and as far as I am concerned, let them - the truth will always prevail anyway, and in time the cousin will see how stupid they really were when it hits them full-on like an oncoming freight train.  It may not even happen in my lifetime or theirs, but at some point provided the Second Coming doesn't happen soon someone will uncover the truth about things.  That is a consolation that helps me to navigate these complex cloverleafs of family gossip and hearsay. 

That pretty much summarizes the issue as far as that is concerned, and again, much of this rests more with my mother's side of the family than my dad's side.  Although over the years Dad and I didn't have the greatest relationship, his family has nonetheless been quite loving and good to me, and they do not have as much of the crazy family drama and atomization that my mom's folks do. This doesn't mean they are perfect or anything, but overall my experiences with them have been good.  In recent years I have gotten very close to a number of family on Dad's side, and it has been really a blessing to finally get to know them.  Ironically, due to the fact that Mom had custody of me when I was a kid, I never got to know then many of my relatives on Dad's side like I wanted to as I never was around them as much.  Yet, throughout much of my childhood I was around many of my cousins, aunts, and uncles on my mother's side, and now they are the ones who are atomized more.  As I grow older myself though, I am starting to realize something, and that is what I wanted to talk about now.

My family dynamic has changed in recent years in some unusual ways.  For instance, despite Barbara and I being divorced, she is more like family to me still than many of my own blood relatives.  Also, in due time I may have the chance to sort of refine my own legacy and write a new chapter, as there is something that I will share at some point that may make that possible.  There have been instances in life where a family legacy is preserved not by continuing old chapters, but by starting new ones.  It may mean the family dynamic changes, and that is OK.  Not everything can be as it was, and in some cases it is better to let some things die and be buried.  A new chapter, I feel, is now being written in my own life personally, and it is just in the opening paragraphs at this point.  Letting God direct it as it unfolds is integral, and in time I will share a few things which are part of that new chapter as right now is not the time to do so.

Thank you for allowing me to share today, and I will be talking more soon. 

The Land Speaks

 In recent weeks, I have been watching these videos on YouTube about these nasty creatures called HOA Karens.  The word "Karen" is used to describe a nasty, opinionated, entitled upper-class White woman who insults and belittles others.  She is that person who yells for the manager over a penny's difference in a pack of gum, the woman who also sends things back at a restaurant, and when you put a person like this in leadership, they tend to become totalitarian tyrants.  The HOA culture is like a fetid sewer which richly cultivates this type of person, much like the garbage on a Baltimore street encourages large rats.  These stories on YouTube, which may or may not be based on real events, personify the entitled, evil "Karens" who threaten old ladies for the wrong color irises, veterans for flying American flags, and violate the personhood of disabled people as "inferior."  Some of these stories, in all honestly, make me want to string these evil demons in female skin up and flog them until all the blood drains from their pathetic bodies, and they are honestly addictive to watch.  However, one of these stories got my attention and I wanted to reflect on it because something about that particular story resonated.  Let me first give a summary of the story, and then I will share my thoughts on it.

In the story, a man has a farm with a fertile corn field, and a nearby HOA "Karen" was trying to assert authority she legally didn't have over the man's farm, which had been part of his family for several generations. The farmer was resolute in standing his ground, and then one of Karen's goons used a stolen hoe and killed the man's dog, which got a reaction - the farmer broke the man's nose.  After burying the dog in the cornfield, the "Karen" came back trying to impose her will she didn't technically have, and the guy got his justice.  She entered the cornfield, and he set fire to it and it did its damage.  Then, when she came out and tried to still assert herself, she fell on some strategically-placed stakes soaked in honey, and in addition to maiming her legs, she found herself in the middle of a volatile fire ant nest, and the ants were all over her.  When she tried to pitifully beg for mercy, he stepped on her hand, and that did it.  He left her there wallowing, and somehow she made it to a hospital.  By that time she had also lost her marbles, as the impact of the experience caused her to have a mental collapse she never recovered from.  Her goon, the one who killed the dog, came back another night and was going to settle the score, but he ended up disappearing into the field as well.  In time, Karen was seen wandering around without shoes and in a hospital gown, and she would come to the cornfield and have conversations with invisible entities who were not even there - the farmer let her do that and never interfered until eventually she faded away completely.  At the time of the corn harvest, the man's field ended up producing abundantly, and despite the fact certain people attempted to destroy the field, it ended up being a bountiful harvest, and the message the farmer had was simple - the land doesn't forget. There is a lot packed into this, so let's talk about it.

One of the first things to understand is that this should not be read as a form of pantheism or anything - no one is worshipping the earth or anything.  Pantheism is a demonic belief that all is God and God is all, and God is viewed as the same as creation.  That idea is a part of both animistic paganism as well as Eastern religions such as Hinduism and Buddhism.  It was also one basis for the occultic worldview of the Nazis, and that view was traced with them to the volkisch occultism of people like Guido von List and Lanz von Liebenfels.  In that context, it also became a basis of racism.  The aforementioned story has nothing to do with any of that, but it does acknowledge however that there is a connection between someone and their roots, and we Appalachians call that "sense of place."  So, is there a Christian foundation to any of this?  Let's discuss that for a moment.

One important thing about the Thomistic theological/philosophical tradition is that it emphasizes two things.  First, the role of supernatural grace and what it does.  Secondly, there is a theology of God's creation of the earth and mankind which is a foundational basis for my own Biblical Creationist theological position as well as my scientific acceptance of Intelligent Design.  Essentially, this would be called the "Two Books" idea of God's creation - God authored two "books," one being a written Revelation contained in Scripture (or rhema) and the second being Nature itself.  The way these two things relate to each other is integral to a Christocentric understanding of faith - Revelation perfects Nature, and Nature confirms and authenticates the truth of Revelation.  It is also part of the whole idea of the Laws of Sufficient Causality and of Noncontradiction - to summarize those, the first states that everything has an ultimate source, while the second says that something cannot be and not be at the same time.  Based on that, we conclude rightly that everything is created by God, so it is a gift and blessing to us and even he called it good.  This is why oftentimes among Fundamentalist and Charismatic Protestants it is disturbing because they adopt a quasi-gnostic understanding of creation whether they intend to or not.  Phrases such as "in the natural" are spit almost with contempt by their preachers regarding even human emotions, and in all honesty when I was a Pentecostal that never made sense.  Again, the Law of Noncontradiction - nothing cannot both be and not be at the same time.  Therefore, calling God's creation "evil" or anything else derogatory is then basically calling God evil, and perhaps people who get off on those quasi-gnostic tangents need to really think about the implications of what they say.  God and his creation are distinct from each other, but God also did create the heavens and the earth, and everything in them, so we should consider them a blessing to us and treat them accordingly.  In this story of the farmer and the evil "Karen," I got the sense of that, as his assertion that "the land speaks" also goes along with Biblical passages such as Isaiah 55:12 ("The trees of the field shall clap their hands") and Luke 19:40 ("And I tell you that, if these should hold their peace, the rocks will cry out"), and in a more somber tone, there is the account of Cain's murder of Abel in Genesis, where God flatly told Cain that the ground was crying out in judgment because Abel's blood was spilled on it.  In that case, the Genesis account goes along with this story of the farmer on YouTube - the blood cries out for justice for a soul whose life was stolen by an evil one.  All creation therefore, as Aquinas and Bonaventure both correctly noted in their "two books" example, bears witness to God both in celebration but also in judgment.  That is why this story grabbed my attention.

It is not occultic, or pantheistic therefore to respect nature and its sanctity - it was created by God, and the earth itself bears witness of many things.  So, the story of this farmer illustrates that although we often brush things aside or ignore them, nature sees it, and in time what is concealed in the darkness will be brought to light if we do evil to someone by violating their God-given liberty or disrespecting them.  Think of nature as a silent witness to the work of humankind - people can easily deceive each other, but nature is not capable of deceit because it is what it is - it is there, and in many cases it holds a legacy for us.  A family home for instance is more than just a house cobbled together with brick, wood, and glass - it is home and there is a fundamental connection a person has to where they come from.  In Appalachian culture, we call that "sense of place," and it is what binds generations together as well as providing roots, identity, and other things to the person who was born there.  While this can easily be taken out of context, it is fundamental to the human experience and is how God made us.   There are two ways though that it can be misused, and I will get into those now.

The land stores negative experiences as well as positive, and I am thinking back to the movie Forrest Gump now because there is a very poignant example of this.   Forrest's love, Jenny, comes back to stay with him for a short time, and while Forrest is on the proverbial cloud nine, one day when he and Jenny were walking they come upon the old house her family lived in.  As a child, Jenny had been abused by her dad (or stepdad - I don't recall which he was in the film) and it caused her to have serious emotional scars.  When she saw that house - by now it was long abandoned and was in a bad state - it triggered things in her and she responded by releasing pent-up rage at that house by throwing rocks at it.  Not everyone has a positive experience regarding "sense of place," and that is part of the picture as well - sometimes we even have to face that in order to heal and grow.  Those who inflicted the misery corrupted the hearts of their victims in that regard, often doing irreparable damage.  What had the potential of a pleasant memory becomes a nightmare, and Jenny's old house in that movie illustrated that well. In this case it wasn't Jenny who caused the bad memory, but her abusive father.  Abusive and selfish people can corrupt things so easily, and they even misuse a home to create a negative memory for an innocent victim like a child.  The second example though is even worse, and it was once turned into a political system.

A part of the Nazi platform in Germany during the years leading up to the Third Reich was something called Blut und Boden, or "blood and soil." When I was doing work on this for my dissertation, I found out this was part of the whole volkisch mentality fostered by the precursors of National Socialism, and it was brought into National Socialism from Walther Darre (1895-1953), who was Hitler's Minister of Agriculture during the Third Reich.  Darre based this on his reading of the racist author Hans Gunther, who in turn digested it from his readings of Malthus, Galton, and Gobineau, who in turn co-opted it from the occultism with its pantheistic view of the land and German blood being one and the same.  I devoted a lot of space in my dissertation to this idea, because it was pivotal in understanding some of the more evil aspects of Nazism as it related to "purification" of both the land and the genetic identity of the fictional "Aryan" race many of them dreamed up in their delusional minds.  In this context, the land becomes a god in itself, and because the genetics of a certain race are believed by people who hold this view to come from "the soil," then both the blood inside a person and the soil they stand on are seen as one and the same.  This doesn't affirm God's gift of creation, but rather corrupts it by confusing the Creator with the creation, and the end product of that is never good - it results in the genocide of millions. This corrupted view must be rejected, especially by Christians.  Although our home and where we come from are something we hold as a precious thing, it should never be exalted to the point that the land becomes deity, nor should any type of ethnocentrism result from it.  That is why a proper understanding of "sense of place" is integral to having a healthy mind and spirit. 

The ultimate idea of this, however, is actually quite simple.  God created everything we see, and because of that, it should be respected and taken care of.  God gave man a special place of dominion over the earth, but with that comes the awesome responsibility of being a wise steward without exploiting the earth or making it into a deity in itself.  Rather, we take care of what God entrusts us with by maybe cleaning up the litter and pollution we create (the city of Baltimore where I live now would do well learning this) and by protecting and preserving what we have been given against those who would seek to do harm.  The farmer in the story did just that, and he treated the land like an old friend which could show its own expression.  While the land is not a living organism in itself, our care of it determines how we are rewarded.  If we really take care of it, we reap the benefits of it.  If we don't, then it causes more damage that can impact generations.  And, that starts with our own homes.  However, lest you think this is some sort of "global warming" screed, let me clarify that fast now.

The whole "climate change" and "global warming" spiels that have become a pervasive part of public discourse are quite honestly disturbing - they are not disturbing because they are true, but rather the opposite.  These agendas are driven by individuals who want to control, to dominate, and to micromanage everyone based on a utopian delusion that exists only in their own minds.  While many of the proponents of this lie - Gates, Soros, Schwab, and their buddies - are wealthy beyond the imaginations of most normal people, they are also devoid of any sense of decency and do not have the common good in mind.  They see this "global warming" hysteria as a way to make lots of extra money and exert control over things, and in doing so they are dangerous.  None of them believe in "global warming" either because they know it is a false narrative, but they use and manipulate it to exert their own control over others, and that is what is scary.  There is very little difference, for instance, in the ultimate agendas of people like Klaus Schwab and George Soros and the early Nazis, as when one reads what they are proposing it sounds eerily similar.  Both Schwab and Soros were known Nazi collaborators when they were younger, and both of them have nefarious ideas which would make even Lanz von Liebenfels flinch.  Like the abusive parent who scars their child's memory of home, these oligarchs misinterpret and manipulate a true respect for nature with an agenda, and their agenda is NOT God's way or will.  That is why it should be rejected as well. 

If God has blessed you with a home of your own, cherish it and treat it with respect.  If you do, it will reap many benefits that even your descendants will be blessed.  But, never make the extremes of conflating land with God, or never let anyone damage or destroy land either - protect it and be the steward over it God called you to be.  In doing so, we have true "sense of place," and that says more than volumes could communicate. 

Thank you for letting me share again this week, and hope to see you again soon. 

Summer Month Observations

 I am entering my third week of summer break from my teaching position this week, and in all honesty it is a bit jumbled.  I feel both exhausted and unsettled, as we have faced some challenges (extreme unseasonable heat for a few days, porch pirates, and a landlord who, although a nice guy, has a micromanaging fetish).  If you have ever had that incomplete feeling, it is something that is a bit hard to process.  Nothing is necessarily bad, but you still feel a bit out of place.  I recall when we still lived in Hagerstown I never had that feeling because there was more purpose then to my life than there seems to be now.  I know I am in a time of rebuilding, but that can be sometimes a bit to digest as you essentially have to recalibrate almost everything in your own life as you try to regain your footing.  Then, being in inner-city Baltimore is almost like being in a foreign country.  I want to linger on this for a bit, because it is at the core of some of the other things I am feeling right now.

I have always liked Maryland as a state - sure, it is more expensive than perhaps my home state of West Virginia, but it also has its charms too.  Although Baltimore is the biggest city in Maryland though, there is something different about it that does not really reflect the rest of the state - as I repeat, it is like a foreign country.  I don't really feel like I fit here in all honesty, and ironically, I lived here when I was a little kid and never felt that then.  Perhaps it is because I live in a different part of the city - I am more acclimated to the west side of town where many of my own family lived for years, and only now am I just getting acclimated to the east side of the city.  It's not that the city is completely bad, not at all - some parts of this area such as Charles Village and Fells Point are quite nice.  But, I don't live in those areas, but in Harwood - Harwood is in the north-central part of town, off Greenmount Avenue, and it is almost completely demographically Black in population.  If you go two blocks south of our house, all you see is urban blight - garbage all over the streets, boarded-up rowhouses and businesses, and frequent displays of insanity from the local drug addicts as well as being accosted for "handouts" if you walk in those areas.  It is not a safe area either, as the potential to be robbed, murdered, or assaulted is eerily hanging over the area like a dark demonic cloud.  While this particular street we live on has been somewhat renovated, there are still problems - porch pirates are like a pandemic, and dealing with rude entitled Black people who think you owe them something just because your skin is lighter than theirs can be stressful.  Fortunately, I have the income and soon will have the credit to kiss this part of town goodbye, and at this point I am working on doing just that now.  The ultimate goal is to buy a house, but in all honesty I can even rent a more upgraded place in a better neighborhood until I am able to do that. Barbara is on-board with this too, as she is sort of feeling the same way - thankfully we still have each other as a divorced couple but also still close friends.  I want to talk about that a minute too because some misconceptions about divorce need to be cleared up.

Divorce is obviously a tragic thing, and I don't believe it is anything that anyone aspires to.  Even a generally mild and amicable parting in a divorce settlement can trigger a tailspin in life, and that has been the case for both Barbara and myself.  The mythos of divorce in the US is that it is considered to be liberating and a right to life, and the expectation is that a divorced couple has to hate each other.  Especially if a couple is Christian and may endure a divorce, it doesn't mean that they cancel each other out, as it is still possible to be friends with your ex.  There are instances, as a matter of fact, where exes often end up closer as friends than they ever were as a married couple, and if the parties involved are Christians, then it serves as a witness and not some freaky abnormality.  In Barbara's and my case, we ended up being still very close, and to be honest, she is like a sister to me and I love her as if she was blood relation.  Barbara and I have been there for each other, we have helped each other out, and even at times when we have been attacked for it, we know better thankfully and will always have each other's backs.  I believe that Barbara and I will always be close until one of us eventually passes on, and to be honest that is not bad at all.  This now leads to a couple of things I want to say about that.

Marriage is a sacred covenant, and a sacramental act.  Ideally it should be eternal, and the love of the couple should grow as the years advance.  But, we also live in a fallen world too, and things happen.  Barbara and I divorced not because we hate each other, but because some very serious underlying issues tainted our marriage for years - we had issues with fully trusting one another and some other things, and often external forces manipulated that and intensified it to the point we began to understand a marriage couldn't work that way.  In all honesty, we don't blame each other for that, and we now speak openly of the fact that what happened to us was neither of our faults, as we in a sense were both victims of the same thing.  A lot of things - from meddling in-laws to manipulative cult-like churches - messed us up almost from day one, and we both suffered as a result.  Because the trust was essentially destroyed, so was our intimacy.  A strong factor in a good marriage is that an intimacy should be there which bonds both partners in such a strong way that they almost breathe and think as one.  That intimacy is foundated on a pure love, a love in which each person gives their whole hearts to the other without question, and in giving one's heart, you also give your complete and total trust.  This is what it speaks of when the Bible says the two shall become "one flesh."  The ultimate fruit of that is children - a child is the true fruit of deep love, and the child embodies the "one flesh" of their parents because they embody the best of both. This is why the Bible is also somewhat strict on sex as well - sex is not something that should be a recreational sport, but it is instead a beautiful sharing of each other in a physical way that creates a spiritual bond.  That is why a lot of times this within marriage is not just called sex, but instead it is called making love - you are celebrating a beautiful love that brings you and your spouse to a new level, a oneness and bond that will be so strong that the couple cannot even think of life without each other.  While Barbara and I had a level of love in our relationship - we were always there for each other, and still are now - that is what we missed, that beautiful, united love that creates a soul bond.  It is something I know we both desired but could never let ourselves totally commit to.  But, I know what that love feels like, and it is perhaps the most beautiful thing a human being can experience.  And, that is why often it is exploited just for the feeling it creates - sure, sexual indulgence feels good, is enjoyable, and it does give some emotional crutch, but without the proper context for it, it becomes either an afterthought or a bad addiction - that is where pornography comes in.  Pornography is Satan's mockery of true intimacy, and so is its related vice of prostitution.  Those things tend to reduce sex to just a fleshly indulgence, and in the process it loses its special place in human relationships.   Likewise, the wrong types of relationships - this includes homosexuality - further reduce the sanctity of the marriage bed because it throws out the natural order of things and turns a slogan like "love is love" into an epicurean political statement that is based on unnatural intimacy.  That is one reason too I believe the LGBT+ movement has embraced the sin "pride" as its slogan - it is about personal indulgence and has nothing to do with true love.  No matter how committed a homosexual relationship looks - and they do try to push that in the public sector - it still is lacking elements that make it a true expression of love.  Now, it is not up to me to dictate behavior - people are always going to do things we either know are blatantly wrong or fundamentally disagree with based on principle, so nothing is new there - but it is a responsibility to share the truth even when it may appear controversial.  There are signs on some liberal churches in town here that say "all are welcome" with rainbow flags framing that phrase, but there are two things about this I want to say.  Of course, anyone is always welcome in God's house - even the most vile of sinner has a place there.   Secondly, unlike the sharia Muslim crowd or the extreme Fundamentalists among our own Christian faith, no decent Christian is going to advocate mass execution of gays or anyone else who engages in problematic behavior.  The best policy for dealing with people like that is to treat them like human beings, subject to the dignity any human being is entitled by divine law to have, but at the same time disagree with their choices.  If bad choices were cause to execute someone, the population of the earth would be drastically reduced because we all would be guilty in some way for something.  Rather, by showing a gay person or someone else who is engaging in a lifestyle choice that is not right a basic kindness, you may impact them.  Many a drunk, drug addict, criminal, and gay person has found new life in Christ because a follower of Christ showed love and grace to them, and often those people are so transformed that they are even unrecognizable afterward.  Grace converts inwardly, and transforms outwardly - that is how it works.  But, treating someone with basic human dignity does not mean we affirm what they do - we should not compromise our faith for anything, despite how popular it might be in wider society.  What it does mean however is that we approach them in the right spirit and attitude - Scripture says as wise as a serpent and as harmless as a dove - and just be the witness to them.  That doesn't entail preaching at them, beating them over the head with the Bible, or constantly condemning them - no; it means we are honest with them about what we believe, but we also let them know that we value them as a fellow human being.  Until we learn this lesson as a Church, we will miss Christ's mandate by infinity. 

This balanced approach - being firm in our convictions while at the same time showing Christ's love to others - will ultimately be what converts the sinner.  There is no manual on how to do it either, and I cannot even say my approach will be something that works with you.  Some Christians can do the "in-your-face" type of testimony, and it will reach some people depending on the person.  Others can campaign for traditional values, yet also be there for everyone if a crisis happens - starvation and emergencies don't worry about if a person is gay or not, but rather if their survival is maintained despite the circumstance.  So, yes, give the gay person you see out there sweltering in heat a bottle of cold water to refresh them, and also never be afraid to do something even less grand such as giving directions to a gas station if they need it.  That is just basic human decency, and it respects all mankind as being created in God's image without affirming whatever bad habits or behavior they may engage in. I think it was the book of Ezekiel that says the rain falls on both the wicked and the righteous, and in Acts 10 the lesson is that God is not a respecter of persons.  To God we are all humans created in his image, and although his heart breaks at some things members of our race do, he still loves us regardless.  And, that is not universalism either - hell is real, and God doesn't send us there - we choose that fate.  Which is the last thing I want to talk about now.

There are some very narrow-minded types who like to, in the name of God, condemn anyone and everyone who disagrees with them.  One of those is a lady I mentioned some time back who was related to a former pastor of mine.  Will a person like that - who obviously displays a sin of pride - end up in heaven?  Let me suggest something very radical with that.  The Bible describes hell as an eternal lake of fire, and many saints and visionaries over the centuries have had visions of this place.  One thing that occurs to me is this - hell may or may not be a literal lake of fire, but it is a real place, and I have a radical idea of what hell will be like for some who cling to a prideful self-righteousness.  The prideful self-righteous Fundamentalist (or even traditionalist Catholic, as those exist too!) thinks they are on their way to heavenly bliss because they attack anything and anyone that even disagrees with them on what would be otherwise an inconsequential point. By becoming self-appointed "arbiters of salvation," such individuals isolate themselves.  Due to the lack of true conversion and grace in many people like this, they may be in for a delusion.  I believe hell for such a person will be something of their own creation that God allows once they get there - it may look heavenly, but it will be a lonely place for them.  Such an individual will think they are in heaven, but they will soon learn this is not the heaven God envisioned - it is a prison they constructed themselves, and God has given them what they want, complete isolation, even from him.  The fire will be internal and eternal for such people - they will be lonely, and their regrets, their cruelty, and their prideful self-righteousness will torment them through eternity even while they sit in what looks like a beautiful place.  That is an ultimate hell for the self-righteous who cloak hatred in legalism and religious jargon, and they attack others for maybe holding a belief slightly different from theirs - nothing fundamental to faith or anything, but just a slight detail such as maybe the earth was 10,000 years old rather than a literal 6,000.  Do those numbers radically alter faith?  Not at all, as those who would say one or the other would nonetheless agree in the fundamental truth - God created the heavens and earth.  But, to a self-righteous legalistic fundamentalist, it becomes a pivotal issue, so much so that they cut themselves off from other Christians and they become prideful in that they think they are the only truth on something that is frankly inconsequential in the greater scheme of things - Christ Himself describes such people as those who "strain gnats and swallow camels."  Therefore, the "heaven" they create in their minds will become their personal hell.  There is more I should say about this, but we will save it for later.

Thank you for allowing me to share this week, and I look forward to visiting with you again soon. 

Where's the Sign?

 I wasn't planning on writing again today, but a few things have been on my mind.  So much as a matter of fact that I am having one of those moments trying to figure out how to sort everything out.  I am in my second week of summer break from teaching, and I am also starting a certification program in Instruction and Leadership to enhance my professional skills, but to be honest that overwhelms me a bit too.  One of the courses I am taking has to do with the application of technology to the classroom, and to be honest I am a bit weak in that area because I am not what you would call a tech-savvy person.  I can navigate my way around a computer, and have rudimentary knowledge of a few things to function in that regard, but that is about it.  My housemate, James, is more versed in those areas as that is what he is doing his undergraduate degree in.  However, he would be of little help with the course I have because that requires posting a discussion, and then responding to two classmates about it.  I am in the process now of trying to figure out how to do that. Which prefaces today's discussion.

A few years back, a well-known comedian I enjoy watching and hearing by the name of Bill Engvall came up with a shtick called "Here's Your Sign," and part of it was pointing out a stupid question to something and then giving a clever answer - although Engvall is often called a "redneck comedian," to be honest the conventional wisdom he communicates in his routine is something that will make you pause and think.  I am trying to think of one of his more witty examples but for some reason they are eluding me right now - that is my "sign" that I am getting older, and I have been noticing it more in the past few years.  Signs serve an important purpose in life - they identify things, point you to a destination you are traveling to, and also serve as directional aids.  Without signs of some nature, we would all be in trouble in all honesty.  The theological definition of a sign is something that points beyond itself to a greater reality, and in a sense it is sort of directional as well.  So, when the sign is either absent or for some reason you don't see it, you end up confused. Now, let's get back to where I am at today.

Since last October, I have felt like I am traveling a back road without a road map, and there seems to have also been a conspicuous absence of directional signs too.  Oh, once in a while I get some idea of what I am doing, but for the most part I have felt like I have been suspended in Jello for the past several months.  There are several factors I want to look at which are contributing to this bit of mental limbo I am in, as in desperately seeking the sign I need, I wonder if somehow I am missing it.  

To begin, my teaching position has been keeping me really busy.  I am thankful for the summer break because in all honesty I was feeling somewhat worn out from my first full year teaching school, and in keeping busy I haven't been able to pay attention as much to things I probably should be.   Imagine driving on a busy city street like say, Russell Street in downtown Baltimore.  All the traffic, road work, and everything else means that a driver needs to stay extra vigilant on the street.  However, if you are driving on a busy street like that, you become too focused on the task and may miss a vital directional sign to get you on the path to the destination you are traveling to.  Work has been like that with me over the past several months, and frankly I feel like I am still trying to catch up to myself now.  When I read Josef Pieper's book about the vital role of leisure in our lives and the sin of acedia, and this has caused in turn a sort of atomization of society, John Horvat notes it the following way in his book Return to Order:

"In our crowded cities, many are lonely.  In our interconnected world, there are those who feel entirely isolated, tormented by apathy, boredom, and restlessness. Is it any wonder we cannot unite to find solutions? Is it any wonder that so many feel abandoned and full of anxiety?" (John Horvat, Return to Order. York, PA: York Press, 2013. 88)

What Horvat has addressed is the very definition of acedia - the idolization of busy work and distraction that causes one to lose focus.  And, the demands placed on us by society - our landlords, our jobs, our education, etc. - contribute to this lack of culture.  We are driving in a busy downtown venue but are missing the directional signs to know where we are going, so we are becoming lost in the milieu.  I once felt like that in Corporate America too for the many years I did office work, but who would have thought it would happen teaching at a Catholic school.  But, there is more, so let's go there.

One of the biggest casualties of a life of busyness is that if you are a person of faith, your religious life suffers.  Between being worn out from work and dealing with porch pirates stealing deliveries at your home, etc., your prayer life suffers.  God is the one who gives us many of the directional signs we seek and need, but we miss them because everything else has our focus and not him.  Since COVID and the orchestrated pandemic associated with it, I have probably missed more church in the past 5 years than I have in the previous 20.  We missed this Sunday - the Feast of Corpus Christi - as a matter of fact because of these damned porch pirates stealing things off our own doorstep - dishonest and evil parasites like porch pirates don't just steal your packages, but they also steal your peace of mind and quality of life.  Our focus has been on the porch pirates instead of on our eternal souls, and that is costing us dearly.  Satan does that to us as well - he creates distractions so we get thrown off balance, and then he can effectively neutralize us.  That was the lesson in Matthew 14 of Jesus walking on water that he was trying to teach St. Peter.  Peter wanted to go to Jesus on the stormy sea, and Jesus told him to come to him.  While Peter was focused on Jesus, he was successful, but as soon as a distraction like the howling wind came, he lost focus and began to sink in the turbulent water.  We see it also in stories such as The Lord of the Rings, where Frodo and Sam were being led by the creature Gollum through a bog, and in that bog were dead bodies from many battles.  As long as Frodo and Sam stayed on the path and didn't let the sight of the bog distract them, they had a clear passage.  However, when they started to stray off the path, they risked joining the corpses in that bog.  Now, in life maybe our stakes are not that high, but they still have consequences.  If you are so focused on the traffic and other distractions, you will miss the sign telling you where you need to go.  Then, Lord only knows where you will end up.  Signs therefore are integral to our life pilgrimage as well, and we have to pay attention to those signs and not the distractions of life in order to stay on the right track.  However, if you are like me, you learn that many times the hard way, as you wander off the path and end up someplace you don't want to be.  While it is not hard to get back on the path you should be on, it could take time to get back there.  So, we need to look for those signs and follow them. 

That is essentially what I wanted to share today, and I will more than likely be writing more over the summer as I have both the time and inspiration to do so.  Thanks again for reading, and will see you next visit. 

Averting a National Crisis

 Another special post today, this one dealing with the Israel/Iran episode, the 12-day war.  I am about to present an opinion on this that is a little uncharacteristic for me, but it does need to be said because more people feel the same way.  And, that includes our President, who made clear on no uncertain terms that these hostilities need to stop or else.  

There are two core issues in this.  First, support of Israel.  Second, regime change in Iran. I want to take these one at a time, and hopefully give a new perspective on the whole situation.

I have been a strong supporter of the state of Israel since as long as I can remember, and I still support its right to exist.  Israel IS the Jewish homeland, and the historical record backs that up.  That being said though, it does not mean Israel is perfect, and in this instance they made a boneheaded mistake.  After our own bombers successfully bombed the main Iranian nuclear facility a few days ago at the Fordow location, in all honesty it cancelled Iran's position as a major threat.  And, the Iranians sued for peace with us in a strange way - they launched six badly-aimed missiles at a US base on Qatar, but we successfully intercepted those too and no harm was done, and on top of it, the Iranians told us they were doing it!  That experience enabled Trump to broker a ceasefire between the two countries - Israel and Iran - and  everything looked like it was in order.  Then, just after the announcement, Israel launched MORE planes at Iran, claiming Iran fired a missile at them, which the Iranians flatly denied.  At that point, Trump had lost his patience with both countries, and in a very candid news interview, he said that Iran and Israel were both essentially acting like petulant children, and that they had been fighting so long that "neither knew what the **** they were fighting for anymore."  Trump's understandable frustration necessitated that little drop of his own bomb, in this case a proverbial "f bomb."  After chewing out Bibi Netanyahu earlier today over the whole mess, a REAL ceasefire was finally announced.  Now, if they don't get crazy and do something else stupid, maybe this war will be over. 

Our support of Israel's existence needs to be more nuanced in all honesty.  Just because they are a "Chosen People" does not make them perfect, and in recent years Israeli leadership has been doing some boneheaded things.  I dealt with one in particular, namely that Israel has been arming Azerbaijan to commit genocide against Armenians in Artsakh.  And now, they are trying to foment hostilities to start World War III with a hostile and psychotic ayatollah that rules Iran.  I will get to Iran in a minute as well, but want to say that we don't have to agree with everything Israel does - we can still support their right to exist, and even on Biblical grounds we can believe they exist for a reason.  But, they too are sinners just like the rest of us, and not every time an Israeli passes gas is it going to smell like lilacs.  Support Israel where support is warranted, but also don't be afraid to criticize them when necessary either. 

Now, onto Iran.  Iran is ruled by some rather maniacal and very radical individuals, and that nation has been in the grip of a bunch of religious fanatics since 1979, and our own left-wing politicians have enabled that.  That being the case, I fully would rejoice at a regime change there, but here's the thing - it is not up to us to make that happen.  We need to let the Persian nation liberate itself from the oppressive grip of the radical ayatollahs, and if history has taught us anything, we tend to make things worse when we try to initiate regime changes in that region.  In studying the history of the region, we may be culpable in giving Ayatollah Khomeini power because for some reason some of our career bureaucrats at the time wanted to get rid of the Shah, who was honestly a much more stable leader.  Well, we accomplished that, and the ones that took over were far worse and took our own citizens hostage.  I remember as a 10-year-old kid seeing that play out on the news on my grandmother Elsie's television.  Thankfully, the Shah has an heir, and his son has been talking recently.  While a regime change there would be great - especially if the Shah's throne is restored - it is best that we let the country handle it and keep our bumbling noses out of it.  Trust me, it will be much better that way if we can control ourselves from giving into the urge to get involved.  We did our part - Iran's nuclear capability has been crippled, and there is a growing unrest among younger Persians against the repressive puritanical rule of the Ayatollahs, and that gives hope.  Let the situation play out, and then offer support once they liberate themselves.  If we do that, the transition will be less volatile. 

These two nations - Israel and Iran - are the descendants of two great and ancient peoples.  We would do well to respect the legacies of both without blowing up half the planet in the process.  Israel needs to be called out when she is wrong, and Iran needs to remedy its own political system.  Doing those two things will carry much weight in the long run.  Thanks again for allowing me to share.

Heat Wave and Other Weekly Updates

 As I am writing this, our heat index in downtown Baltimore is unusual for this time of year - it was a sizzling 101 degrees yesterday!  While temps like this are not out of the question, it is unusual for it to be so soon in the summer - we usually don't have these types of temps here until at least early August.  Just a couple of things to say about this, and then we will move on. 

I can see it now - a number of leftists are going to start hollering "global warming," and Greta Thumberg will temporarily get her nose out of Palestinian terrorists' backsides to give us another of her dramatic "how dare you!" moments.  I don't see this as any evidence of global warming at all - it is just a fluke of the weather and more than likely will cool off soon enough.  Also, weather patterns like this mean the possibility of thunderstorms, and a good rain will be the key to cooling things off a bit.  The "climate change" doomsayers therefore can shut up and go back to eating their avocado vegan toast in their mama's basement. 

I also wanted to address an issue we have been dealing with the past couple of weeks or so - porch piracy.  For those outside of the big cities, you may not be aware of what this is, but essentially it is when some parasite with nothing better going on in their lives steals deliveries off of porches and doorsteps.  Many of them are so brazen that they do so in broad daylight, and in the past 2-3 weeks I have had two packages stolen, and a housemate also had some deliveries stolen as well.  Baltimore for some reason seems to be experiencing an epidemic of this behavior, and even the cops are ignoring police reports about it now.  While on one hand companies such as Amazon will recoup the costs of the stolen merchandise, it is still a bit disruptive to the normal flow of life.  So, being that cops here don't seem to take porch piracy seriously, I decided to take matters into my own hands and did so in two ways.

For those who know me, you know I love cats, and I have three of them.  One part of cat care is the infernal litterbox, and it can be one of the most challenging jobs to clean one of those.  Cat urine, unlike human urine, is extremely akalyne, and it reacts quickly with bleach or any other household cleaner.  I found that out several years back when I lived in Florida.  At the time, I was cleaning the litterboxes out on the back porch, and I made a bad mistake of pouring a combination of bleach and ammonia in the box as I was cleaning it.  What resulted was a chemical reaction which produced a small acrid cloud, and come to find out that could be extremely toxic.  When I did research later on how to effectively clean litterboxes, I found out that the best way to neutralize the odor is with something acidic, like white vinegar.  Now, for people who know me well, the smell of vinegar makes me very nauseous, and I hate the stuff.  It is an effective cleaner for sure, but for me I cannot endure the odor of it.  But, that day I made an exception to neutralize the litterbox toxicity I had created, and thankfully the vinegar did alleviate the toxic reaction.  Oddly too, the bleach and ammonia also neutralized the vinegar too, so what was left was essentially water after that - odorless and colorless water.  I tell that story to tell this one, and then I will get back to the main topic.

Cat litter can be tricky, and in order to make the job less unpleasant, it is important to choose the right kind.  The ones that look like small pebbles are the best as generally they will just dump out with no issues.  However, there is the other kind, a finer litter that is more like coarse sand.  That stuff is useless, in that it creates a stinky cement that takes forever to clean out of a litterbox.  I try to avoid that stuff at all costs, but when you have a grocery delivery service like Instacart shopping for you, often they replace what you order with what you don't want, and not wanting to waste money, you have to use it.  I think pet supply manufacturers should take that sandy crap off the market and instead stick with the more gravelly litter as it is easier to maintain.   That backstory now leads us back to our original thesis.

The noxious odors of a litterbox can be overwhelming at times, but in some cases that can be an effective weapon too.  When we were struck twice by porch pirate parasites, and the police report I filed was never followed up on, I decided to take matters into my own hands by creating a trap for the pirates.  In a small box that I had received a delivery in sometime back and still had lying around, I placed a small trash bag, and as I cleaned the litterboxes I filled that bag up with the most pungent litter (and a few cat turds for extra effect) and then securely tied it shut to contain the odor.  Then, I sealed the box with tape, making it look like a parcel being delivered, and I set it outside my door.  The heaviness of the litter would fool the scumbag attempting to steal it into thinking if it is that heavy  it must be valuable.  Then, I stuck it outside on the door step overnight to see what would happen.  And, wouldn't you know it, someone jacked it!  I would love to see what happens when they open that, thinking it is valuable merchandise they can sell to get their next crack or fentanyl fix, and they get that nasty surprise!  It is my hope that it may deter them from messing with our house again.  As an extra measure, we decided to invest in a secure package recepticle to stick outside as well, so that no one could steal packages.  Also, after my housemate reported theirs missing, Amazon is doing its own investigation as well to see if they can effectively reach a solution which would keep our deliveries safe and free of theft.  I only hope they are successful in doing so. 

Bottom line, porch piracy is one of the worst and most prevalent crimes, especially in cities.  People have important deliveries they are expecting, and the human vermin that steal those fail to understand they could be tampering with something important, such as life-saving prescriptions.  Of course, they don't care, because they are evil, selfish, and only serve to feed their own addictions which lead them to do stuff like that.  It is not because they are poor, homeless, or hungry either, I guarantee that - there are plenty of poor, hungry, and homeless people out there who do not resort to such tactics, and in all honesty they would probably be the first to stop such crimes if they witnessed them happening.  The typical porch pirate is not homeless or hungry at all - they are stealing merchandise to make a quick buck, and often they also may have addiction issues too.  In other words, they are criminals, plain and simple.  I have actually suggested that we should do to porch pirates what some countries like Saudi Arabia do to their thieves - you steal there, you get your hand chopped off.  A few extreme deterrents like that may cause this crime to dissipate in major cities, and that would be a good thing. 

So, we talked about cat litter and porch pirates, and the other aspect of my thoughts this week has to do with my search for a new house soon.  Thankfully, God's provision in recent months has made it possible to get some small credit problems straightened out, and being I also have been blessed with a good salary teaching, I am able to start considering buying a home for the first time in my life.  I know buying a house will be a process, but where I am at now was not meant to be a forever home - I live now in a small cramped room that essentially serves as a bedroom, office, and even coffee station for me.  While I live fairly comfortably, it is not what I am used to.  Given this is a time of recovery from a lot of things for me though, it also gives me a chance to plot the course of life I am going to be on for the next several years.  And, one immediate goal is getting the hell out of inner-city Baltimore and moving to a more compatible environment where you don't have to worry about getting deliveries stolen, etc. I will continue to document progress on that. 

On that note, I am due for a demo lesson that I get to observe and review for my school, which is happening in approximately 15 minutes.   So, I will go for today but plan on sharing more insights soon.  Thank you for visiting with me today.