I talked about Steve Ray’s blog post on the Assumption of Mary in a previous post, and I found out from Kevin Johnson’s blog that Kevin’s comments had been deleted.  So I went to the page in question, and found this in place of my pingback:

Comment Deleted: I don’t want this trash on my site. If I had infinite hours in a day to respond to every pontificating anti-Catholic I would leave these all up to refute them. But I just don’t have that luxury any more and don’t want trash up here that might advsersely [sic] effect someone not fully educated in the faith. Some will huff and puff that I am censuring them. You bet! It is my board. Many people don’t want honest discussion but only to rant and rave and cause trouble. I notice most of them don’t have their “Comments” open to the public so they avoid having to answer longwinded diatribes at a moment’s notice.

My “Blog Comments” are open to honest and helpful discourse — not diatribes against the Catholic Church. For now I now have “Comments” set so I will approve them before they are posted. If anyone doubts my ability to confront and refute, just view the hundreds and hundreds of pages I used to write when I had the time. But I am not going subject myself or my readers to “bullies” who want to dictate what I do with my time — nor will they pollute my blog with their endless debate for the sake of debate.

If trolls and anti-Catholics want to discuss on my website, they can take their chances on my Discussion Forum which IS open to long-winded debates and discussion. This blog was never set up to be that. If you want to take your chances with Siggy on my Message Board, visit http://forums.catholicconvert.com.

I will post a general response to much of the criticism of Mary and the Church, but I will do it in my own time.

Fun stuff.

First of all, my comments section is open, Mr. Ray.  You are more than welcome to engage me on any issue I have raised, I will be happy to defend myself.

Second of all, with a daughter due in two months, a full-time job, a blogging ministry, and three different forums I try to frequent, I know well the constrains of time.  I have responded to you, I have responded to Jimmy Akin, I have responded to J.P. Holding.  I do not expect any of you “famous” apologists to respond to anything that I have to say, least of all, at a moment’s notice.  But, at least one of you “famous” apologists have taken the time to read my little old blog, and did leave a comment.  And that guy, a nemesis of yours to be sure, has just as little time on his hands as you do!  The point is that if it is important to you, you will make the time.  Other blog posts you have made it abundantly clear that you do not care to respond to the likes of James White, and Kevin Johnson you waved off and dismissed as another typical Protestant.

When you post a logical argument with little in the way of logic, you should expect your blog comments to reflect that.  You should expect knowledgeable folks like James White and Kevin Johnson to take you to task on it.  If you make a claim, you should expect to be called to back it up at some point.

Finally, I am neither a troll nor an anti-Catholic.  But you have already said that you will not take the time to read and respond to viewpoints you don’t consider important.  But if you are unwilling to listen to what an honest person is trying to say to you, wouldn’t that make you the troll?

Just something to consider.

Most people would be thrilled beyond words if, for example, they got a baseball signed by their favorite pitcher.  They would display it proudly, buy a special glass case for it, or show it off to all of their friends.  In this day and age, they would probably post pictures of it on Photobucket or MySpace or Facebook so that all of their online buddies would see it, too.

Well, I have just had the equivalent of this autographed baseball happen right here on my blog.  I’ve looked up to James White of Alpha and Omega Ministries from my earliest days of answering God’s call to apologetics.  I have bought two of his books (I was actually reading Pulpit Crimes last night!) and read his blog everyday.  In fact, it was his blog that gave me the inspiration to start an apologetics blog of my own.  From the first time I saw Tekton Apologetics Ministries, I knew I wanted to be an apologist, but it wasn’t until I discovered Dr. White’s blog that I had any inkling of how I should start.  I owe quite a bit of thanks to both Dr. White and J.P. Holding for the direction of this ministry, for I patterned it after their own.

I think that my wife is tired of hearing “James White says…” at the beginnings of my sentences.  I tend to over-quote him.  Not on the blog, just in real life.  In fact, when I discovered that he debated here in Toledo in the early 90s, I was sorry I had missed out.  Who knows if he’ll be back?

But I’m just trying to set the stage for what I’m about to say.  The equivalent of that autograph that I’m proudly displaying for all to see is that Dr. James White has left a comment on this blog!!  And it was complimentary to the work I’m doing.

God Himself, being an invisible God, won’t come down and stand in front of me and say, “Good job.”  But He orchestrated the next best thing: having the apologist I admire most do just that.

Now it’s my turn to feel warm and fuzzy.

Paul Pruett from Pensées, another apologetic blog, had this thought in a recent entry:

In all my interactions with atheists I have noticed a curious thing: they are very keen to be thought of as “good” people and insist that it does not require a deity in order to seek to act morally. Indeed, they claim that it is nobler to be good for its own sake than to be good for the sake of rewards gained or punishments avoided, which they believe theism entails. (source)

This is true, and I have had several interactions with atheists–most notable in my mind PariahJane from the RRS–on that topic.  Jane reported that she was quick to do “the right thing” for her friends or acquaintances, whatever it may be in that situation.  If memory serves, the specific situation was giving a friend some money which she never expected to be paid back, and she does things like that frequently.  Jane believes her actions to be much more “moral” than a Christian faced with a similar situation who would do the same thing, simply because she expects annihilation after death while the Christian simply expects a reward after death for the good he did in this life.

It is true that we, as Christians, are going to be rewarded after death.  But that shouldn’t be the motivation behind doing “the right thing” in this life.  God knows our hearts and is not impressed by outward shows of salvation when our hearts are only after a perceived reward (cf. Mat 7:21-23).  God is impressed by a sincere desire to please Him.  Only a part of that is doing “the right thing.”

What we come back to, once again, is how exactly Jane can claim to know what morality is.  On what authority is something deemed “good” or something else considered “evil?”  Is good merely someone’s point of view, as Supreme Chancellor Palpatine (a wholly evil character, by the way!) contends in Revenge of the Sith?

I’ve seen some atheists contend that evolution gives us our sense of morality.  That morality has evolved on its own accord throughout the many societies that have existed on this planet.   But if evolution gave birth to this morality and it has evolved based on human need, Pruett observes:

The only universally descriptive axiom regarding human behavior is, “Nobody’s perfect.” Such a statement only begins to make sense if there is some “perfection” to which humans fail to conform. But if humans define the standard, and all humans fail it, from whence comes the impossible scale? (source)