Catholic Evangelizes repentance from sin and proselytizes spreading the Gospel; the church apologizes.

'Sin leads to hell'

This sermon led to an apology from the Bishop of Kerry

What are your thoughts? pic.twitter.com/pBXVtjb5PG

— Catholic Arena (@CatholicArena) November 1, 2022

I didn’t know Catholics evangelized the souls of men. Sheehy got in trouble, and the church apologized. So, no, Catholics don’t, in fact, evangelize for Christ?

In a statement, Bishop Ray Browne apologized to “all who were offended,” adding “the views expressed do not represent the Christian position” and the message was not appropriate for a “regular weekend parish Mass.”

We agree the views expressed in the clip don’t represent the Christian position. And that’s the problem. We might have worded it differently, but what Sheehy said is Bible 101. We’re offended that he didn’t receive a standing ovation.

Browne’s Monday statement was released to appease parishioners who were outraged by Father Seán Sheehy’s homily delivered to mass-goers in Listowel on Sunday.

Watch a clip from Sheehy’s now-viral sermon for yourself: ‘Sin leads to hell’

This sermon led to an apology from the Bishop of Kerry

Bishop Browne needs to apologize to Christ! Are there any Catholics here who can explain, from the church’s position, why what he did is wrong? Is it wrong?

David Kopel debunks a stupid set of claims with a made-up set of indices that proves nothing, all promulgated by the idiots at Duke University (among others).  We’ve run into these dummies before.

The authors, one at Duke, and one at Wesleyan University (who has probably never shot a firearm in her life), should read Kopel’s analysis and be ashamed for the poor “research” and bad analysis and writing they did.

Anyway, if you want to read all about this stupid notion of the lethality index, read Kopel’s analysis of what these writer claim.  I found the most interesting part of Kopel’s article to be these few paragraphs.

Miller and Tucker write:

The Founders lived in a period when they could perhaps be forgiven for thinking that “a gun is a gun is a gun,” because the basic flintlock hadn’t really become significantly more lethal in the previous 150 or so years. If the Constitution had been written in the middle of the nineteenth century, instead of the 1780s, the Founders would have been much more aware of the pace of innovation. (p. 2511).

This is incorrect. The American colonists from Europe who arrived in the early 17th century came mainly with matchlocks. In a matchlock, pressing the trigger lowers a smoldering hemp cord to touch the gunpowder in the firing pan. Over the course of the century, Americans shifted to the more expensive flintlock. In a flintlock, pressing the trigger causes a sharpened flint (held in the gun’s “jaws”) to fall forward. The flint strikes a piece of metal, and the shower of sparks ignites the gunpowder in the firing pan.

Unlike matchlocks, flintlocks can be kept always-ready. There is no smoldering cord to give away the location of the user. Flintlocks are much more reliable than matchlocks, and all the more so in adverse weather.

Americans made the shift from matchlocks to flintlocks sooner than did European armies or European civilians, because the flintlock was so vastly superior for use in the dense woods of the eastern seaboard, and for Indian fighting, which was very different from the rigidly organized, linear tactics of European warfare. For the same reasons, American Indians greatly preferred flintlocks to matchlocks. The TLI of a 17th century musket is 19 and the TLI of an 18th century flintlock is 43. So the transition of firearm type in the American colonies more than doubled the TLI. There is no reason to believe that the American Founders were ignorant of how much better their own firearms were compared to those of the early colonists.

Besides, the men who penned and approved the 2A had spent their lives and fortunes on overthrowing tyranny, which is the singular point of the 2A.  It would be idiotic to believe they would have written the 2A any other way based on a “lethality index” created by ne’er-do-wells in the twenty first century.

I like his choices, and especially his paint job.

First, Here Kitty Kitty,

Bend police shoot, kill cougar in NW Bend neighborhood after deer-kill site found in a backyard.

“The cougar was exhibiting behaviors consistent with being a public safety risk, including showing no fear of humans in extremely close proximity, hunting in a heavily populated area and returning to the kill site,” the police spokeswoman said.

Sounds like hunger. People won’t’ hunt the dear, so Lions do. Reality is a hard lesson; somebody will get attacked pretty soon. The suburbs of America are now full of deer. The grazing is good; those deer face no human threat and are fairly docile, prime targets for predation by an apex hunter. These “rare” incidences will likely increase.

After setting up a containment area and ensuring the location was safe, officers shot and killed the cougar, Miller said. ODFW took possession of the animal and later reported it was a 1- to 2-year-old, 77-pound female.

Beth Quillian, a public information officer for ODFW, says the cougar was shot instead of tranquilized because of the threat it posed to the community.

“Tranquilizing animals like a cougar can be pretty tricky,” Quillian said. “It’s not always as easy as tranquilizing the animal and it’s down.”

Miller says it was a hard, but necessary decision.

“We don’t take this decision lightly, we care a lot about wildlife as well — but our role is the safety of our community and our neighbors,” Miller said.

And there was this “rare” Mountain Lion recently captured in a Los Angels neighborhood.

Next, Hunter Shoots Himself in the Leg While Fighting Off Grizzly Bear

“firing a gun in a grizzly bear encounter is rarely the right decision.”

That bit of expert advice sounds like the punchline from a standup skit.

After Francis shot himself, his son activated his SOS device to get help, according to the news release. Then, he provided first aid to help control his father’s bleeding. With darkness approaching, they worked out a plan with emergency responders through the SOS device.

Francis’ son, unnamed in the news release, got his father on a horse and led him toward nearby Water Dog Lake. Search and rescue workers caught up with the pair at about 9:20 p.m. and administered first aid. They extracted Francis by UTV to Flying A Ranch, the news release said, and then flew him via helicopter to the University of Utah Hospital for treatment.

A search and rescue official also accompanied Lee’s son and horses back to the trailhead.

His son, whose age was not mentioned, did a very good job. Fill your mind with useful knowledge, practice those skills, carry the tools you need in the bush, and don’t go alone.

Wyoming game wardens have begun an investigation and will try to locate the grizzly bear that Francis told police attacked him.

Western Wyoming officials said the incident marks the second grizzly bear attack in the area this month. On Oct. 15, a grizzly attacked two college wrestlers outside the town of Cody.

Wait, we were assured, attack after attack, year after year, that these encounters are “rare.”

Such incidents have become more common in Wyoming, where grizzly bears have made a comeback, especially around Yellowstone National Park. As a result, Wyoming leaders have asked the federal government to remove grizzly bears from the Endangered Species Act. If approved, the bears could once again become legal game animals.

[…]

Wildlife officials continue to recommend bear spray as the preferred method of dealing with grizzly bears. According to the National Park Service, it’s actually more effective than firearms for defending yourself in a bear attack. Not only that, but it’s also a better move from a legal standpoint.

That last highlighted link in the embedded article provides zero data and no evidence of the assertion that bear spray is more effective. It’s just a bunch of government propaganda about how it’s always best to be a disarmed slave, even in the wilderness.

Chuck Baldwin just preached Revelation Chapter Seven this past Sunday. It’s an interesting, wide-ranging (beyond Revelation 7), and worthwhile video study. He also spends time laying some foundation for future messages on Revelation.

Reading this brief post first by Ken Gentry will help as background.

The 144,000 saints represent Jewish converts to Christianity who dwell in Israel. Note the following evidence:

1. The text expressly refers to the twelve tribes of Israel: “I heard the number of those who were sealed, one hundred and forty-four thousand sealed from every tribe of the sons of Israel” (Rev 7:4; cf. vv 5–8). John later calls this body of 144,000: “first fruits” (Rev 14:4). Christianity’s first converts hail from Israel (Ac 1:8; 2:5–12, 22–24, 36–42; cp. Ro 1:16; 2:9–10). They are the remnant of Israel that forms the seed of the new covenant church.

2. John distinguishes them from “the great multitude, which no one could count, from every nation and all tribes and peoples and tongues” (Rev 7:9). John is careful to make this strong distinction between the two groups.

We find ourselves in good company in this, as Baldwin also agrees with the distinction between the 144,000 and the “great multitude, which no man could number.” (7:9)

1. The Old Testament source from which John draws his imagery is Ezekiel 9:4, which clearly specifies they are from Jerusalem: “The LORD said to him, ‘Go through the midst of the city, even through the midst of Jerusalem, and put a mark on the foreheads of the men who sigh and groan over all the abominations which are being committed in its midst.’”

2. God protects them in “the Land” which is being judged (Rev 7:1; 14:3). The Greek phrase he ge in Rev often means “the land,” i.e., the promised Land of Israel. This fits well with the previous action occurring in Israel.

3. Such a designation comports well with Christ’s warning his followers to flee Jerusalem before its final overthrow (Mt 24:15–16; Lk 21:20–24). He promises that those who heed his prophecy will be protected (Lk 21:18–19).

4. We must always remember that Revelation’s events are to occur “shortly” because the “time is near” (Rev 1:1, 3; 22:6, 10). This fits perfectly with the historical flight of Jewish Christians from Jerusalem prior to its fall.

This is interesting.

Despite Christians instructing the magistrate on how they must govern to honor God being the historic protestant position of political theory, many have attempted to malign Christians with the label of “Christian Nationalist” in an attempt to disarm them from public discourse on politics. This term has scared many Christians and caused them to reject Christian Nationalism. This article will respond to some of the major concerns many Christians have with what they perceive Christian Nationalism to be.

Christian nationalism can be summarized by this: God instituted governments to promote good and punish evil and it is a duty of the Christian to inform the magistrate of what God calls good and evil. This is because Romans 13 details that the government is established by God and is His minister. Uncoincidentally, the word “minister” used here is the same word used for both deacon and servant— “diakonos”; the Christian then must inform the rulers on how they are to honor God with laws that promote good and punish evil.

Many have claimed that Christian Nationalism is about instituting a theocracy when nothing could be farther from the truth. God created three institutions, the Family, Church, and Government as distinct institutions with unique roles. The role of the government is detailed in Romans 13:3-4 as “Rulers are not a cause of fear for good behavior but for evil… for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath on the one who practices evil.” Governments have been ordained by God to promote good and punish evil and they do this by instituting just laws. Since good and evil are defined by God, it is the Christian’s duty to inform rulers on how laws are to honor Christ.

When discussing God’s ordained created order of Church, Family, and State, a proper understanding is essential. The use of the word Government instead of State detracts from the argument. The Family has a government, and the Church has a government. As the Family is being destroyed by the State, we see that the essential God-ordained government of a family, with the man as the head, is indispensable for a thriving civilization. The correct representation of magisterial or civil authority is State. It’s an important distinction, but the thrust of the message remains solid. All bodies have government, but not every government is State government, despite the communist’s best efforts. Romans 13 is prescriptive, not descriptive.

The distinction between Christian Nationalism and Theocracy can be made because Christian Nationalism is about enforcing the second table of the Law and not the first. When God gave Moses the Ten Commandments (Exodus 20) the laws were divided into two tables. The first table, commandments one through three, dealt with God’s relationship with mankind and proper worship. This is administered through the body of Christ with the Church. The second table of the law, commandments four through ten, deals with man’s relation to his fellow man. This is basic civil law which is the duty of the government to enact. Since Christian Nationalism is about proper enforcement of the second table of the law Christians from varying traditions can unite around it as it does not involve the institution of laws regarding proper worship.

There’s no evidence as to which tablet contained which commandments. The author uses a common Lutheran explanation. The Law of God is a covenant; both tablets probably held a complete set of commandments, as any valid two-party contract would. Also, the ten commandments are a summary or table of contents for the entire Law of God. From that, we understand interpreting any one of the ten as a proverb will always lead to misapplication of the Law of God. “Indeed, The full covenant summary, the Ten Commandments, was inscribed on each of the two tables of stone, one table or copy of the treaty for each party in the treaty, God and Israel” – Rousas John Rushdoony.

I don’t think there’s proof either way from the text of the Bible, but we’re willing to be wrong about that if somebody could indicate the verse(s) that shows which commandments were on what block. It’s not a significant contention.

We also disagree that you can enforce a portion of the Law and not be in violation of the entire code. If an offense exists in just one point, the whole Law is transgressed (James 2:12). What the author describes in partial enforcement will always fail because the Law is perfect, by which we mean both infallible and complete as a single (statutory requirement) body of doctrine. A contract void in any one point is invalid in all. That’s a fundamental legal precept, the source of which, in the west, is the Bible.

It’s readily accepted that civil government flows from culture. But where most balk is to take the logical and ultimate conclusion that the source of culture is derived from that society’s religion. Religion is the first order, penultimate, from which all else flows; despite decades of the communists and other socialists attempting to eradicate this simple truth, it’s still a fact. This campaign of the socialists has been so effective that merely using the word religion gets people’s dander up. You are a religious creature. You have a religion, whether you like it or not, and whether it’s recognized as a religion or not. This religion of yours creates not only a common culture but then also informs the type of State governing apparatus you have. Religion concludes the determination of moral codes, which are a nation’s law.

Rushdoony:

“Law is in every culture religious in origin. Because law governs man and society, because it establishes and declares the meaning of justice and righteousness, law is inescapably religious, in that it establishes in practical fashion the ultimate concerns of a culture. Accordingly, a fundamental and necessary premise in any and every study of law must be, first, a recognition of this religious nature of law. Second, it must be recognized that in any culture the source of law is the god of that society. If law has its source in man’s reason, then reason is the god of that society. If the source is an oligarchy, or in a court, senate, or ruler, then that source is the god of that system. Thus, in Greek culture, law was essentially a religiously humanistic concept… Third, in any society, any change of law is an explicit or implicit change of religion. Nothing more clearly reveals, in fact, the religious change in a society than a legal revolution. When the legal foundations shift from biblical law to humanism, it means that the society now draws its vitality and power from humanism, not from Christian theism. Fourth, no disestablishment of religion as such is possible in any society. A church can be disestablished, and a particular religion can be supplanted by another, but the change is simply to another religion. Since the foundations of law are inescapably religious, no society exists without a religious foundation or without a law system which codifies the morality of its religion. Fifth, there can be no tolerance in a law system for another religion. Toleration is a device used to introduce a new law system as a prelude to a new intolerance…” – Rousas John Rushdoony, Institutes of Biblical Law vol 1

That bolded part explains everything that’s being done to America and the west. And it explains very well why a country can have millions of laws and be a corrupt cesspit of vipers, and we’re not talking about Washington, DC. The religion of America is self, self as god. All are sinners; there’s no way but for evil to abound under this regime. The solution is not to implement Bible Law or a Christian ethic in code; souls must be converted to Christ. That’s His commission. Trying in any way to create a just society outside of the method ordained by the Just One will fail.

The author of the linked piece rightly explains that Christian Nationalism cannot be divorced from the Law or the Great Commission.

While it has been made clear that Christian Nationalism is about instituting just civil laws, some have thrown out the accusation that Christian Nationalists want to force conversions. Only the Holy Spirit has the power to draw sinners to Himself. However, when a government’s laws are based on God’s word those who transgress them will know they have broken God’s law. The Apostle Paul said in Galatians 3:24 that “the law is our tutor to bring us unto Christ, that we may be justified by faith.” The Law does not save us but it teaches us we need to be saved. This is the first step in telling people they need the Gospel as they cannot know the good news without first understanding their depravity and need for a savior. Having civil laws based on God’s word will in turn teach people they need a savior.

“Only the Holy Spirit has the power to draw sinners to Himself.” And what is a Christian’s role in this?

Christian Nationalism is not uniquely American, nor is it about spreading Americanism. God calls all the nations to honor Him.

[…]

Some have claimed that being a Christian Nationalist means only caring for your own country. This has been a result of the post-war liberal consensus that the only way to properly love other nations is to first hate your own. Scripture does not tell us to love our neighbor by hating our own family, but tells us the exact opposite when the Apostle Paul states in 1 Timothy 5:8, “But if anyone does not provide for his own, and especially for those of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.” Paul is saying that even the pagans take care of their own so how much worse is it that Christians don’t take care of their own? This principle can be applied at the national level as well because the nation is a large group of people with common descent and shared culture. If even non-Christian nations take care of their own, how much worse would it be for a Christian nation to not take care of its own?

Timothy is being instructed on being a public Christian, particularly a Pastor and leader, and the context of that passage is about widows. But we don’t argue against the application made in the article. 1 Timothy 5:8 seems to broaden out the principles discussed about the treatment of widows to give general Christian instruction in all cases. It’s apt to Timothy’s congregation perhaps and us today certainly.

The Left has destroyed the very thought processes of Americans, but we’re encouraged to see these truths struggling to come to the fore. There’s a new book on the topic that we have not read. The article is worth reading for its main points, which are valid and poorly understood, if at all, in mainline American Christianity.

Serious Christian men would do well to review a body of work already in place on these very topics. Rushdoony, North, Gentry, and others have laid the profound groundwork in preparation for what is now being called Christian Nationalism. The Kingdom of God is supposed to be the primary influence upon all of mankind under the Great Commission. That doesn’t mean only individual Christians acting outside of civilization; it means a Christian Global Civilization.

I’m not trying to be a gun snob, but one thing the Italians know how to do is make shotguns.  Beretta for gas operated guns, Benelli for inertial shotguns.  Additionally, anyone who claims that pump action is the only reliable action in a shotgun has never shot a Beretta A400 or 1301.  I’ve shot both, and I’ll say the same thing about semiautomatic shotguns to the malcontents that I say about ARs and 1911s.  I’ve never had a single FTF or FTE, or a malfunction of any kind.  And I run them hard.

You get what you pay for with any product, and guns are no different.  This think looks cheap.  You couldn’t give it to me.

My experience with a .44 Magnum wheel gun is that shooting it is a bone rattling event, at least with a short barrel.  I don’t think I ever want to shoot this thing.

I suspect that by characterizing this thing as controllable, there’s more than a little irony.

Source:

We are in early voting in Tennessee and there are lots of individuals running for governor and the state Legislature.  Many of them, including incumbents, are claiming that a) they are 2nd Amendment supporters and b) that they voted for “constitutional carry”.

Before you vote, know the truth.  The truth is Tennessee has NEVER had real constitutional carry in the last 200+ years and it does not today.

REAL “constitutional carry” means that it is not a crime to carry a firearm for a lawful purpose, such as self-defense.  Nor is it a crime to carry a firearm in most places – including public places – unless the place falls into a very narrow and limited exception.

Tennessee’s laws fail that standard.

First, Tennessee has Tennessee Code Annotated § 39-17-1307(a)(1) which says “A person commits an offense who carries, with the intent to go armed, a firearm or a club.”   That means it is a crime to carry any firearm in Tennessee “with the intent to go armed”.   That law is broad that it is even a crime to carry a firearm with the intent to go armed on your own property, in your own home, or even with a permit.  That is a true statement because Tennessee Code Annotated § 39-17-1308 makes each of those factors “defenses” to the criminal charge.   When something is a “defense” or an “exception” to a criminal charge, the burden is on the citizen to prove to a law enforcement officer or a jury that the individual’s conduct satisfied the elements of the defense.

Now, many police officers would not arrest or charge someone if they clearly could demonstrate the existence of facts supporting the defense – but the officer has the discretion to do so.

Even the 2021 “permitless carry” law, which many have erroneously referred to as constitutional carry” has at least 7 elements or conditions to its application.  Further, it is also written as an “exception” which means that the burden is on the individual to prove that the individual satisfies all of those conditions.

Second, Tennessee also fails the REAL “constitutional carry” standard because of part of what Bill Lee offered and the Legislature passed in 2021 in his “permitless carry” law.   As part of the 2021 law, they added Tennessee Code Annotated § 39-17-1307(g) which is the operative language of the permitless carry law.   However, it does not apply to everyone who can lawfully purchase or possess a firearm.  It only applies to handguns.  It only applies to individuals who can meet the other qualifications under that subsection – such as the age limit qualification and/or the provision that requires that the individual “is in a place where the person is lawfully present.”

Third,  Tennessee fails the REAL “constitutional carry” standard because of another part of what Bill Lee offered and the Legislature passed in 2021 in his “permitless carry” law.   As part of the 2021 law, they added Tennessee Code Annotated § 39-17-1307(h).  At least three subparts of (h) make it a crime for people who can otherwise legally purchase or possess firearms to carry those firearms “with the intent to go armed.”

Fourth, Tennessee fails REAL “constitutional carry” because it has many “prohibited places” statutes that make in crimes to possess firearms in some specific places (e.g., schools or public parks) but also any other place that might be “posted”.   The problem is that the 2nd Amendment never contemplated that these areas would be subject to government regulation.  In fact, the United States Supreme Court just ruled to that effect in June 2022 when it decided the case of New York Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen.  The Supreme Court essentially said if the right to carry or the manner or place of carry was not regulated by a law in 1791 (or in some instances in 1876) then it probably can’t be regulated constitutionally today.

REAL constitutional carry means that it is simply not a crime for someone who can lawfully possess a firearm to carry it for any lawful purpose – including self-defense.   REAL constitutional carry means that unconstitutional geographic and other restrictions on what, when and where you can carry a firearm do not exist.

So, be prepared when these elected officials and candidates start talking about Tennessee and whether it had constitutional carry.  If they can’t get that right, do they need to be in public office to protect your other rights?

Source:

Stratolaunch is one step closer to a drop test of the Talon-A hypersonic prototype.

Stratolaunch, builder of the world’s largest airplane, flew a prototype of its planned air-launched Talon hypersonic vehicle for the first time on Friday (Oct. 28).

 The massive Roc carrier plane, which has a wingspan longer than a football field, carried the test vehicle Talon-A (TA-0) into the sky above California’s Mojave Desert on a flight that proved Stratolaunch’s huge plane can indeed carry the experimental hypersonic vehicles it’s designed to launch from mid-air. Videos as the link.

Video of the takeoff here.

Technical data and depth of information about this project are frustratingly sparse. But apparently, the craft isn’t powered by unicorn rainbow flavored candy wishes. One would think that Space.com wouldn’t be so shallow. Not everyone is a dumbed-down mindless drone.

Stratolaunch — the air-launch company founded by the late Seattle software billionaire Paul Allen — put a test version of its hypersonic vehicle through its first in-the-air trial today.

The Talon-A separation test vehicle, known as TA-0, stayed firmly attached to its Roc carrier airplane throughout today’s five-hour outing, which began and ended at California’s Mojave Air and Space Port. This was Roc’s eighth flight test, but the first to have a payload attached to a wing pylon centered between its twin fuselages. Roc rates as the world’s largest airplane, with a wingspan of 385 feet.

This time, Stratolaunch focused on measuring the aerodynamic loads on the Talon-A test vehicle while mated to Roc, in preparation for future tests that would involve releasing a functional, rocket-equipped Talon-A for hypersonic flight.

Roc reached a maximum altitude of 23,000 feet and a speed of 185 knots (213 mph) during the flight test, Stratolaunch CEO Zachary Krevor said.