Columnist and former president, Catholic University
The Reverend William J. Byron, S.J., a former president of Catholic University, is on leave this year from his position as research professor at the Sellinger School of Business and Management, Loyola College in Maryland to serve as president of St. Joseph's Preparatory School in Philadelphia. The “On Faith” panelist served as interim president of Loyola University , New Orleans in 2003-04 and for three years prior to that, was pastor of Holy Trinity Catholic Church in Washington , D.C. From 1992 to 2000, he taught "Social Responsibilities of Business" at Georgetown University , where he was Distinguished Professor of the Practice of Ethics and served as rector of the Georgetown Jesuit Community. He was president of Catholic University for a decade (1982-92). Byron writes a syndicated bi-weekly column, Looking Around , for Catholic News Service, and is the author of a dozen books, including A Book of Quiet Prayer (2006); The Power of Principles: Ethics in the New Corporate Culture (2006) and Answers from Within: Spiritual Guidelines for Managing Setbacks in Work and Life (1998) . A founding director and past chairman of Bread for the World , Byron was also named the 1999 recipient of the Association of Catholic Colleges and Universities' Theodore M. Hesburgh Award for his contributions to the advancement of Catholic higher education. In that same year, he received the Council of Independent Colleges' Academic Leadership Award. Byron, who holds a doctorate in economics as well as theology degrees, served in the U.S. Army's 508 th Parachute Infantry Regiment before entering the Jesuit order in 1950. He was ordained a priest in 1961.
Close.
William J. Byron
Columnist and former president, Catholic University
The Reverend William J. Byron, S.J., a former president of Catholic University, is on leave this year from his position as research professor at the Sellinger School of Business and Management, Loyola College in Maryland to serve as president of St. Joseph's Preparatory School in Philadelphia.
more »
Funny how that was ignored and the theological bloodletting continued.
I'll add one thought to his post. Women are more religious because they have to explain their poor choices - like "servant/leader" marriages, sitting in the back of the house, not being allowed to drive, suffering shame for biological functions, etc.
Maybe that's why I married a man who couldn't care less about buying tampons and tells anyone who'll listen that our daughters are smarter than we are.
I think this article was written to inspire debate. I truly do. Yes the Ecumenical Council in 397 CE did select those 27 books as the New Testament after Emperor Constantine put his foot down and said no more arguing (sp?). The Divinity of Jesus was questioned in that council, and other books of the Bible that others believed were Canon were left out. It is not known why this was we just know that it happened. On the other had Science will eventually prove that there is a God or Multiple Gods. This is because the smallest particle in the Galaxy is the Quark and according to current Hypothesis nad mathematical computations the Quark is effected by human thought and thus can create a GOd or Several if the Faith of the people is there. This is all written and documented. Am I Christian, no. I do have a degree in Divinity. I have studied religion. They are all fascinating, and they all calim to be the one true way. Who can tell me without a doubt that there way is right and then prove it to me (Scientifically).
Writers are free to use the grammar they like, and readers are free to assume that anyone writting with poor grammar is too ignorant and sloppy to be worth reading. As a writer, you have to decide what message you want to send.
Thank you for your comments; they are always interesting.
If you will permit me, I will briefly explain the doctrine of the canonicity of the Scriptures. There are actually 66 books included in the canon of Scripture, not 72 (39 Old Testament, 27 New Testament). Just so we're clear, canonicity refers to the acknowledgment that the Bible is the authoritative word of God. The books that are included in the 66 books of the Bible were not "selected" like it was the NFL Draft. You ask the question, "If the two selected that relate the same event can't agree on what actually happened what about all those that were supposed to be burned?" I believe that because of this question that you would agree that it would have made much more sense if they just picked which books to include, it would have made much more sense to choose four "gospels" that said EXACTLY the same thing. But, that's not what we have. We do have four gospels written from different perspectives which give us a clearer understanding of what actually took place.
As far as the canonicity of the Old Testament is concerned, the church's primary basis was Jesus' own quoting of those Scriptures. There was a council of Jews in Jamnia (sometime around 70-100 A.D.) who met to ENDORSE the canonicity of the 39 books, not to select the books. It had long been accepted by the people of that time that those 39 books were considered Scripture; this council only met to endorse that fact.
Regarding the New Testament, it's true that not all the books as written were accepted as canonical at first. Some were held in question(James, Hebrews, and 2 Peter for example). Within the second century of the church, all 27 books of the NT were widely accepted as Scriptures. However, not until 367 A.D. in an Easter letter by Athansius do we find the first listing of the 27 books of the New Testament. In 397 A.D. at the Council of Carthage, they were officially affirmed as canonical.
There were 6 criteria for canonicity:
1. Written by recognized prophet or apostle (such as Paul, Peter, John, etc.)
2. Written by those associated with recognized prophet or apostle (such as Luke who was associated with Paul and Mark who was associated with Peter)
3. Truthfulness (Deut. 18:20-22), meaning that it corresponds with reality.
4. Faithfulness to previously accepted canonical writings (For example, the book of Hebrews)
5. Confirmed by Christ, prophet, or apostle
6. Church usage and recognition - the letters were passed around and copied so that others could read them and hear them read.
There was widespread acceptance of these 27 books. By the time the Council of Carthage occurred, they were there to officially affirm them. So, the notion that the books in the canon were just selected by a group of people because of their own personal preferences and agenda is not valid. When one takes the time to study the canon and understand how the Bible was formed, a much different picture develops.
You asked one other question: "Ambassador, how well can negotiations go if two or more sides can't get something as simple as the event in question straight?"
I believe I have answered this question in my earlier post. The event in question is clear in all four gospels: Jesus was crucified, buried, and resurrected on the third day. As I have pointed out, the gospels were written from different perspectives, thus, giving us a clearer understanding of how the events unfolded.
Thanks again for the comments. I hope that this has helped to explain the canonicity of the Scripture for you.
Ambassador in Christ:
In your response to BA'AL you quote scripture to the effect that if everything Jesus said and did was written then the world is too small to hold the books.
Others here are much more qualified than me to say how many but wasn't the 72 "books" of the Bible selected from a much larger set, over 800 or 850 or more? If the two selected that relate the same event can't agree on what actually happened what about all those that were supposed to be burned?
Ambassador, how well can negotiations go if two or more sides can't get something as simple as the event in question straight? Accepting such as the absolute word of God may explain war, all by self.
Could it be that you are the ambassador of a proved hoax? Me thinks so. Good luck converting those with IQ's above 15. I know! I know it can be explained. That's what doctoring divinities is all about, explaining it. Doctor, sick, hand in glove.
I see, and understand. You are operating on the most basic rules of high school and freshman grammar, and are hoping to see to it that I am vilified for not conforming to such a basic level. Or at least made to feel shame for not being held back by your very basic conception of the rules of grammar.
The sentence in question is indeed complete, should one actually take the time to think of the structure. I would lend you my copy of Rules For Writers, simply as a primer, and indeed my copy of the Modern English Handbook, if it were possible, and if I thought it would be of any use to you. Or, if you would prefer, I still have a copy of a high school English textbook in my closet.
AFC -
We might all face the deity in whom we have faith, should our beliefs include an ultimate judgement. And I respect that you have that belief, and shall face that judgement. I, though, shall not face your diety, but my own, who does not judge.
I have not yet taken the time to read the rest of your most recent statement, so I cannot yet comment on it, though I suspect it is well-thought out, and shall give me something to think about, and a bit more insight into Christian faith and belief.
As I am looking at the final paragraph, though, I think that it may well indeed be truth we are after. Or, perhaps, understanding - not neccessarily for others to understand us, but for us to understand others better. For the most part.
Betty-- my apologies as well. I must have misunderstood your comment and the implications that would follow. Please accept my sincere apology.
Duchess-- Thank you for your comments. You are most certainly entitled to your own opinion and thoughts and I'll be the first to fight for that right. Forgive me for a rather quick response however. I have stated in other threads why I believe in God and the reasons for why I accept the deity of Jesus Christ. (The question as to if Jesus was the Son of God was a topic on this site a few weeks ago.) So, my line of thinking is that if God exists and Jesus is the Son of God, then his revelation to human beings (the Bible) does have ultimate authority. We may not recognize that authority in this life, but if the claims of the Bible are true, we will all ultimately face the God who has that authority in the life to come. I hope this helps to clarify my meaning from my earlier comments.
Ba'al-- Also, thank you for your response and giving me an example of a proposed contradiction of the Bible that we can discuss. I will attempt to explain this example, but I state at the outset that there are many folks more qualified than I am in completing this endeavor. If you google "bible contradictions answered", you can find many resources to address this issue.
Having said that, I need to begin with two ideas to keep in mind as we work through this example. First, we cannot assume that the Gospel accounts are intended to be exhaustive accounts of everything that took place. Case in point: John 21:25: "Now there are also many other things that Jesus did. Were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written." Therefore, we must operate under the assumption that what we find written in the gospels was what the author felt were the main points to be made.
The second idea to keep in mind is that the four gospels were written from four different perspectives. Consider the following example to illustrate this point: if four of us were standing at the four corners of a busy intersection and all of us witnessed a traffic accident, we all witnessed it from different perspectives. We each then provide our testimony of what took place to the police officer. Each of our accounts would agree on the main points, but would no doubt vary on some of the details because we all witnessed the accident from a different angle. Do our stories contradict each other? No, but when the officer writes his report, the four different accounts should complement each other and therefore give the officer a clearer understanding of what actually happened. The same is true when examining the gospel accounts. The details may vary, but they should complement each other to give the reader a clearer understanding.
With that in mind, I will now seek to answer your question. Your question stated: "Who were the first people to discover that Jesus' tomb was empty after the three days?" To respond to your actual question, the answer is true in all four gospels: Mary Magdalene and some of the other women were the first to see the stone rolled away and that the tomb was empty. In Matthew's account, he mentions that the Roman guards were present but ran away in fear when an angel from heaven came and rolled back the stone. The angel then speaks to the women. In Mark's account, again, we see that Mary Magdalene and others came and discovered that the stone was rolled away and that the tomb was empty. In Luke's account, the women (among them was Mary Magdalene) went to the tomb and found it empty. In John's account, he states that Mary Magdalene came to the tomb and saw that the stone had been rolled away. So, as you can see, all four accounts complement one another. They may vary on the exact details of how many women there were, but again that is because of the different perspectives of the authors. Just because John says that Mary Magdalene went to the tomb, he does not state that she went alone. He only mentions that she went. When I go to visit a friend of mine who is married with children, I usually state that I went to visit Jim, when in fact I visited Jim, Jane, and their three wonderful children. Again, remember that the gospel accounts are not to be understood to be exhaustive in their accounts. I hope that this attempt has answered your question.
Thanks everybody again for your comments. You have given me much to think about and study as I hope I have done for you. I hope that we can continue to address our differences in a civilized manner and continue to seek out the truth. Isn't that what we are all after in some shape, form, or fashion anyway?
I think you are on to a useful point. Women, on average, are more trusting than men. They are also more social and connected to life. That is part of our evolutionary heritage.
That would make them more susceptable to religion and the quasi-religions of parapychology and astrology. But that would explain only population statistics. An individual women remains free to think these matters through for herself, and we are all free to keep arguing about the merits of religion.
AFc: you ask me to cite some.
If you are *really* interested, it is easy to find out.
I just googled "Bible contradiction" and got over a million hits. The first is a list of 506 contradictions.
So if you WANT to know the truth, it is revealed to you.
Sorry for misquoting you: that is an odious practice.
What you actually said was, and I copy you now:"There are many intelligent people in the world who do not even have a high school education, let alone a degree from Harvard. To imply that only those who are members of a professional society or have published in scientific journals and the like are the only intelligent people in the world is prideful and arrogant."
I agree it WOULD be prideful and arrogant IF I had implied that.
I stated my finding quite clearly.
Intelligence and belief in a personal good
are STRONGLY negatively correlated.
That DOES NOT mean ALL intelligent people have been published in scientific journals, and I never implied it did.
Your comment "is exactly what happens when folks deny the existence of God, deny the deity of Christ, and deny the authority of the Bible" is either paranoia, delusionism, or, most likely, the poisonous effect that fundmental belief has on reasoning power.
Fr. is absolutely right when he says that women have faith and that the institution has to have more respect for the women filled with faith. The institution kept me away from mass for a long time, but I never lost my faith in God. I lost my respect for the men who run the religion and who should have faith but instead love power.
It seems you're a Bible literalist Fine. Game's on. We'll start with this one. It should be easy. Who were the first people to discover that Jesus' tomb was empty after the three days? Make sure to check all of the gospels and then report what you find. In detail. After all, the devil is in the details, so to speak.
Since you brought up the Talking Snake, I assume that the Old Testament is in play too. But we can stick with just the gospels if you would prefer, or we can include Acts, the various letters, etc. You tell me.
JEN:
Faith-filled is the general acceptance of the supernatural. Heavy emphisis is made on the invalidity of all but God and Satan, (what Lucifer's name was changed to within the last 30 years) at Catholic schools. It doesn't work. Catholic women like all women have a supernatural sense that will not let God and Devil only into their faith, (faith is a meaningless word by itself as anyone should understand).
First lady Nancy Regan was credited with running the country while Ronald recovered from his all night, nightly dinner parties by sleeping until mid afternoon. She used astrological charts to make all the major decisions proving their validity, (the Regan administration, won the cold war, empowered the evangelicals, cut taxes and wasteful government spending on homeless people, leaped tall buindings in a single bound just to mention a few impossible to equal feats).
Faith is holding to the validity of any thing scientological like witch craft, fortune telling, lucky charms, ouji and many more like communicating with the dead, acts of God, visions, miracles, images on grilled cheese sandwiches, an almost endless list. The simple test to see if it applies to you is to answer the question. Do you read what's written on the little slip of paper in your fortune cookie?
Note: The philosophy of the Regan administration invalidates prayer altogether, "no free lunch" an expression that says you must earn your bread by the sweat of your face. We are allowed to pray for anything as long as it's something we don't want. Ronald also introduced us to the most terrifying words ever spoken short of a condemnation to hell, "we're from the government and we're here to help."
To take one of your comments out of context, and ask for more clarity about it, as I am wary about your phrasing.
You state: "... deny the existence of God, deny the deity of Christ, and deny the authority of the Bible."
I would think that one's perception of deity (God, in your case), the figure of Jesus as prophet or deity, and the authority of a holy book (the Bible, in your case) is dependent upon the individual.
For my own thoughts, the first is none of my business. Deities have come and gone over the history of humans, and the existance of any of them makes little difference to me.
The second - I do not feel Jesus has any deity in my view, no matter how much deity he has in the eyes of others. I see him merely as one of the most sucessful cult leaders in history.
Third thought - a holy book has authority for those who follow the writings and teaching within it, but not for those who do not. Its authority is limited, and dependent on the individual and their faith.
In your response, you said, "AFC has some kind words for the Bible. Nice book. Full of contradictions". I humbly ask that you cite some of those contradictions so that we can explore them in more detail.
You also said, "then AFC would have us believe that high school dropouts are on average more intelligent than the scientists at the American Academy." I humbly ask that you please refrain from putting words in my mouth. If you read my post carefully, I stated, "There are many intelligent people in the world who do not even have a high school education, let alone a degree from Harvard. To imply that only those who are members of a professional society or have published in scientific journals and the like are the only intelligent people in the world is prideful and arrogant." Nowhere in this comment do I suggest that high school dropouts are on average more intelligent than scientists. I merely stated that there are other intelligent people besides scientists in the world. But, the tactic that you used to twist my comment to fit your own argument is exactly what happens when folks deny the existence of God, deny the deity of Christ, and deny the authority of the Bible. In fact, this tactic goes all the way back to Genesis 3 when the serpent twisted the commandment of God to plant doubt in Eve's mind. I pray that those who read these posts do not give in to this tactic so easily.
Thank you for clarifying your statement; it is much appreciated.
Betty -
I never did say I was perfect with my spelling, but I do attempt to actually use grammar rules properly. After all, one must be well aware of the rules, and capable of using them properly before one is able to break them. Nor is one permitted to break them indiscriminantly or with impunity.
They are not my "imperial dictates", simply the rules of the English language. I do apologize if you are unaware of those grammatical rules, but I am not responsible for how they evolved. Merely a proponent of actually making use of them as they are meant to be used.
One last point for now - "your majesty" is the address of a monarch, not a mere duchess, particularly in the English language. The appropriate address for a duchess is "your grace".
"Are women, by nature, more trusting? I can't say. Are women more likely than men to trust God and to entrust themselves to God? I think so."
------------
Women die in childbirth, not men.
Women are physically less strong than men.
How many men go off to war & have a near-death experience, & come back a changed man? Women do that every time they get pregnant.
How many times does a man mate with a stronger person than himself? Women do that all the time.
What you refer to as 'trust' is a requisite to having children for a woman. Those women who don't 'trust' don't usually get pregnant (leaving out sperm bank children & rapes).
Men & women are different.
A man can't really write accurately about a woman unless he's privy to a woman's deepest thoughts. And vice versa.
The Intellectual Objectivity of Ambassador for Christ (AFC)
AFC opines that the universe is so improbable, it must have been created by a God we have never seen, but must posit in our minds.
AFC does not realize, in her wisdom, that such a God is EVEN more improbable than the Universe "she" created. Read Dawkins on this point. I also got A's in statistics at very good colleges, so don't throw your weight around. Dawkins is much more intellectually and probabilistically acute than you appear to be. Read his refutation.
AFC has some kind words for the Bible. Nice book. Full of contradictions, acts by God that would get him convicted by the world court (Genocide, murder of children etc). Read Harris, end of Faith. the stylistic consistency of the national enquirer.
then AFC would have us believe that high school dropouts are on average more intelligent than the scientists at the American Academy. I thought Christian followers were not supposed to smoke that stuff.
In response to your post of 11:33 a.m., directly following, once removed, my initial post in this thread, I'd respond:
I have no dispute with your statement that many highly intelligent women, with formidable analytic minds, have a deep belief in a conventional religion.
I didn't articulate it, but what I sensed in Fr. Byron's remarks was a rather old-fashioned, almost European, parish priest's attitude toward the women of his parish.
For example, Fr. Byron says that women "...have a better - far better - record as believers than men."
His view seems to be that belief is good and questioning belief is bad, and, as with schoolchildren, the girls in the school of the Church are better behaved than the boys.
Another quote: "Are women more likely than men to trust God and to entrust themselves to God? I think so."
I can just see the old-fashioned parish priest in Fr. Byron's statement, who sees himself as God's representative in the parish, liking the women who so easily and compliantly entrust themselves to the priest and accept his religious and social pronouncements unquestioningly.
In sum, I found Fr. Byron's essay rather patronizing of women. He thinks highly of them bcause they don't question.
"Moreover, I have insufficient knowledge of the world's religions, so I'm not in a good position to assess how well or badly women have fared across the board."
If he doesn't know how badly women have fared across the board in the history of all religions, what does he know?
Why answer the question? Just admit you don't know what you're talking about.
Would anyone like to define "faith-filled" for me? It seems we are in disagreement about the term...the Reverend defines it as the ability to give oneself over to God wholly...but how is he measuring this?
In a sense, the Reverend is saying that women are more likely than men to give in to blind belief in God. Is he saying this because more women than men approach him and express sentiments and thoughts that suggest this position? Did it ever occur to him that men in general are less prone than women to express feelings of submission, which is exactly what it means to give oneself over to God wholly? One is submitting to God's will, completely and totally. That is the Reverend's definition of faith. I'd bet most men don't feel comfortable saying those words, much less to another man. Perhaps because women are used to submitting to men in their daily lives, submission to God doesn't feel so unnatural.
Then there is the other question: what ramifications does this definition of faith have on the impact of religion in our daily lives? If one believes, as do most Christian fundamentalists, that the bible is the word of God, then naturally entrusting oneself completely to God means total devotion to living according to God's word. In other words, every single passage in the bible should adhered to, without question. Houston, we have a problem...
Personally, I would like to express my total submission to God, where God is defined as my own psyche, in all its infinite and as-yet-unexplored magnificence.
Betty, I will must to assume anyone is an elite scientist for there is no approved test for elite scientist. There may be committees of scientists claiming to be able to create elite scientists, British Acadamey, etc. You do know that a camel is really a horse designed by a committee. Have you seen a preview of the new elite 5 humper?
Women APPEAR to be more "faith-filled" for several reasons. Church is first and foremost a social event. The ladies "best" dress themselves, their babies and insist their hubbys do likewise. Some men only wear suits and ties to church and never otherwise. Women are the spark plugs of that.
When they get to church it's time to "see and be seen" and they gab gab gab. They talk about everything and especially everyone that has nothig at all to do with faith.
Church is entertainment. Blakc churches seem to me to be the best at that sort of thing. They not only sing but the dance-in-place and even in the aisles.
Then comes the super star, God's direct representative with the Bible, God's absolute word. The Crystal Cathedral like St Peters fills to see the big man of God in his OFFICIAL robes. He has all those profound things to say and blesses them directly, in person. On special ocasions the press shows to take down those important words and report them to the world.
Have I left anything out? Oh yeah. God is in there somewhere but where is God? Who needs God when there's a certainty God's representative is there at church in person to bestow God's blessing on all present and condemn all that never come to hell. God comes last but God is not completely neglected otherwise the IRS would come to church too. The press will show if that happens.
All Comments (70)
gfnveyw wmpedr
http://malindablanco.k2free.com/dysfunct93/bee-pollen-and-erectile-disfunction.html bee pollen and erectile disfunction
June 17, 2008 1:47 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on June 17, 2008 13:47
qszwbne evzrg ykdojn
http://helentrent.00bp.com/erectile0c/food-erectile-disfunction.html food erectile disfunction
June 16, 2008 7:11 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on June 16, 2008 19:11
bnqkmo ixsao hwzfya jxdyioz
http://helentrent.00bp.com/erectile0c/mens-health-cure-for-erectile-dysfonction.html mens health cure for erectile dysfonction
June 16, 2008 12:01 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on June 16, 2008 00:01
bnqkmo ixsao hwzfya jxdyioz
http://helentrent.00bp.com/erectile0c/mens-health-cure-for-erectile-dysfonction.html mens health cure for erectile dysfonction
June 16, 2008 12:01 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on June 16, 2008 00:01
oweqkmu
http://carolinefuller.007sites.com/bush-hogd4/president-bush-library.html president bush library
June 13, 2008 11:17 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on June 13, 2008 11:17
hfopxwm zoif wmayrjp
http://christinehanna.12gbfree.com/hot-swea00/free-amateur-sex-movie.html free amateur sex movie
June 12, 2008 10:21 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on June 12, 2008 22:21
hfopxwm zoif wmayrjp
http://christinehanna.12gbfree.com/hot-swea00/free-amateur-sex-movie.html free amateur sex movie
June 12, 2008 10:20 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on June 12, 2008 22:20
ovbilnt phmgjb
http://christinehanna.12gbfree.com/hot-swea00/all-free-homemade-sex-videos.html all free homemade sex videos
June 12, 2008 4:40 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on June 12, 2008 16:40
ovbilnt phmgjb
http://christinehanna.12gbfree.com/hot-swea00/all-free-homemade-sex-videos.html all free homemade sex videos
June 12, 2008 4:39 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on June 12, 2008 16:39
qgnt
http://christinehanna.12gbfree.com/hot-swea00/free-black-women-porno-trailers.html free black women porno trailers
June 12, 2008 3:12 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on June 12, 2008 15:12
koavrlq mqktpz xslmtw aghfv
http://rachelwinsor.00bp.com/free-adu5f/00-free-porno-web-sites.html 00 free porno web sites
June 11, 2008 12:30 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on June 11, 2008 00:30
koavrlq mqktpz xslmtw aghfv
http://rachelwinsor.00bp.com/free-adu5f/00-free-porno-web-sites.html 00 free porno web sites
June 11, 2008 12:29 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on June 11, 2008 00:29
nkpzefw vpndmcy yfmpj jiqkzt
http://nancysamuel.yourfreehosting.net/erectileeb/erectile-dysfunction-herbal-products.html erectile dysfunction herbal products
June 10, 2008 4:39 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on June 10, 2008 04:39
pdoq roabtgh
http://juanlange.678host.com/cause-of2c/herb-erectile-dysfunction.html herb erectile dysfunction
June 4, 2008 1:25 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on June 4, 2008 01:25
pdoq roabtgh
http://juanlange.678host.com/cause-of2c/herb-erectile-dysfunction.html herb erectile dysfunction
June 4, 2008 1:24 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on June 4, 2008 01:24
vpmdrye szyejn zncdm swdqz
http://dannythomason.007sites.com/esteem-vb3/home-cures-for-erectile-disfunction.html home cures for erectile disfunction
June 2, 2008 5:31 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on June 2, 2008 17:31
vpmdrye szyejn zncdm swdqz
http://dannythomason.007sites.com/esteem-vb3/home-cures-for-erectile-disfunction.html home cures for erectile disfunction
June 2, 2008 5:31 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on June 2, 2008 17:31
unli
http://julioison.my3gb.com/alcohol-57/erection-stiffness-problem.html erection stiffness problem
June 2, 2008 2:56 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on June 2, 2008 02:56
unli
http://julioison.my3gb.com/alcohol-57/erection-stiffness-problem.html erection stiffness problem
June 2, 2008 2:55 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on June 2, 2008 02:55
kmarhp vkmctx eldvnri wtkpjrf
http://jamesdenton.freewebspace-us.com/naturalpfb/generic-non-prescription-ed-meds.html generic non prescription ed meds
May 27, 2008 7:20 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 27, 2008 19:20
kmarhp vkmctx eldvnri wtkpjrf
http://jamesdenton.freewebspace-us.com/naturalpfb/generic-non-prescription-ed-meds.html generic non prescription ed meds
May 27, 2008 7:20 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 27, 2008 19:20
lscebj dmygxa iowp vpqeksx
http://antoniowall.bidsex.net/buspar-eb3/erection-problem-remedy-in-homeopathy.html erection problem remedy in homeopathy
May 27, 2008 11:55 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 27, 2008 11:55
lrzoe
http://joanmanning.0buckhost.com/homopath5f/impotence-treatment-psycological.html impotence treatment psycological
May 20, 2008 1:23 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 20, 2008 01:23
zdlvk nzjby
http://loispierson.12gbfree.com/free-onlc1/free-watchable-hardcore-anal-porno-movies.html free watchable hardcore anal porno movies
May 16, 2008 1:19 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 16, 2008 13:19
mgqj
http://mauricelogan.freehyperspace2.com/free-sex92/free-homemade-sex-movie.html free homemade sex movie
May 16, 2008 5:56 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 16, 2008 05:56
atysqwh
http://thomasruffin.freehostingz.com/online-a22/free-cartoon-sex-videos.html free cartoon sex videos
May 15, 2008 9:45 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 15, 2008 21:45
atysqwh
http://thomasruffin.freehostingz.com/online-a22/free-cartoon-sex-videos.html free cartoon sex videos
May 15, 2008 9:45 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 15, 2008 21:45
rlgs mbek
http://vincentkuhlman.00bp.com/movie-sec3/videos--free--online--adult.html videos free online adult
May 15, 2008 2:06 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 15, 2008 14:06
rfdnu pivdsnh
http://michelemcge.hostingtribe.com/sleeping0d/porn-pics-old-teen-free.html porn pics old teen free
May 15, 2008 3:01 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 15, 2008 03:01
rfdnu pivdsnh
http://michelemcge.hostingtribe.com/sleeping0d/porn-pics-old-teen-free.html porn pics old teen free
May 15, 2008 3:01 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 15, 2008 03:01
uoviyb hrek
http://minniestangera.servik.com/black-ga4c/young-girl-and-old-man-sex-movie-galleries.html young girl and old man sex movie galleries
May 14, 2008 7:34 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 14, 2008 19:34
djhnatg
http://juliannmiller.mycyberway.com/long-sex20/download-free-movies-system-for-free-and-songs.html download free movies system for free and songs
May 14, 2008 11:42 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 14, 2008 11:42
djhnatg
http://juliannmiller.mycyberway.com/long-sex20/download-free-movies-system-for-free-and-songs.html download free movies system for free and songs
May 14, 2008 11:41 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 14, 2008 11:41
Hi! I'm Dr. Santana! I love your site! Looking for Viagra?
order viagra order viagra
http://www.blinklist.com/_-ORDER-VIAGRA-ONLINE-CHEAP!-_/]order viagra[/url]
Thank you!
February 11, 2008 10:01 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on February 11, 2008 10:01
David R is right.
Funny how that was ignored and the theological bloodletting continued.
I'll add one thought to his post. Women are more religious because they have to explain their poor choices - like "servant/leader" marriages, sitting in the back of the house, not being allowed to drive, suffering shame for biological functions, etc.
Maybe that's why I married a man who couldn't care less about buying tampons and tells anyone who'll listen that our daughters are smarter than we are.
January 19, 2007 8:32 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 19, 2007 20:32
I think this article was written to inspire debate. I truly do. Yes the Ecumenical Council in 397 CE did select those 27 books as the New Testament after Emperor Constantine put his foot down and said no more arguing (sp?). The Divinity of Jesus was questioned in that council, and other books of the Bible that others believed were Canon were left out. It is not known why this was we just know that it happened. On the other had Science will eventually prove that there is a God or Multiple Gods. This is because the smallest particle in the Galaxy is the Quark and according to current Hypothesis nad mathematical computations the Quark is effected by human thought and thus can create a GOd or Several if the Faith of the people is there. This is all written and documented. Am I Christian, no. I do have a degree in Divinity. I have studied religion. They are all fascinating, and they all calim to be the one true way. Who can tell me without a doubt that there way is right and then prove it to me (Scientifically).
Be Blessed.
Love, Light, and Peace all Love.
January 19, 2007 4:39 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 19, 2007 16:39
Re. The grammar fight
Writers are free to use the grammar they like, and readers are free to assume that anyone writting with poor grammar is too ignorant and sloppy to be worth reading. As a writer, you have to decide what message you want to send.
January 19, 2007 1:13 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 19, 2007 13:13
BGone,
Thank you for your comments; they are always interesting.
If you will permit me, I will briefly explain the doctrine of the canonicity of the Scriptures. There are actually 66 books included in the canon of Scripture, not 72 (39 Old Testament, 27 New Testament). Just so we're clear, canonicity refers to the acknowledgment that the Bible is the authoritative word of God. The books that are included in the 66 books of the Bible were not "selected" like it was the NFL Draft. You ask the question, "If the two selected that relate the same event can't agree on what actually happened what about all those that were supposed to be burned?" I believe that because of this question that you would agree that it would have made much more sense if they just picked which books to include, it would have made much more sense to choose four "gospels" that said EXACTLY the same thing. But, that's not what we have. We do have four gospels written from different perspectives which give us a clearer understanding of what actually took place.
As far as the canonicity of the Old Testament is concerned, the church's primary basis was Jesus' own quoting of those Scriptures. There was a council of Jews in Jamnia (sometime around 70-100 A.D.) who met to ENDORSE the canonicity of the 39 books, not to select the books. It had long been accepted by the people of that time that those 39 books were considered Scripture; this council only met to endorse that fact.
Regarding the New Testament, it's true that not all the books as written were accepted as canonical at first. Some were held in question(James, Hebrews, and 2 Peter for example). Within the second century of the church, all 27 books of the NT were widely accepted as Scriptures. However, not until 367 A.D. in an Easter letter by Athansius do we find the first listing of the 27 books of the New Testament. In 397 A.D. at the Council of Carthage, they were officially affirmed as canonical.
There were 6 criteria for canonicity:
1. Written by recognized prophet or apostle (such as Paul, Peter, John, etc.)
2. Written by those associated with recognized prophet or apostle (such as Luke who was associated with Paul and Mark who was associated with Peter)
3. Truthfulness (Deut. 18:20-22), meaning that it corresponds with reality.
4. Faithfulness to previously accepted canonical writings (For example, the book of Hebrews)
5. Confirmed by Christ, prophet, or apostle
6. Church usage and recognition - the letters were passed around and copied so that others could read them and hear them read.
There was widespread acceptance of these 27 books. By the time the Council of Carthage occurred, they were there to officially affirm them. So, the notion that the books in the canon were just selected by a group of people because of their own personal preferences and agenda is not valid. When one takes the time to study the canon and understand how the Bible was formed, a much different picture develops.
You asked one other question: "Ambassador, how well can negotiations go if two or more sides can't get something as simple as the event in question straight?"
I believe I have answered this question in my earlier post. The event in question is clear in all four gospels: Jesus was crucified, buried, and resurrected on the third day. As I have pointed out, the gospels were written from different perspectives, thus, giving us a clearer understanding of how the events unfolded.
Thanks again for the comments. I hope that this has helped to explain the canonicity of the Scripture for you.
January 19, 2007 1:12 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 19, 2007 13:12
Ambassador in Christ:
In your response to BA'AL you quote scripture to the effect that if everything Jesus said and did was written then the world is too small to hold the books.
Others here are much more qualified than me to say how many but wasn't the 72 "books" of the Bible selected from a much larger set, over 800 or 850 or more? If the two selected that relate the same event can't agree on what actually happened what about all those that were supposed to be burned?
Ambassador, how well can negotiations go if two or more sides can't get something as simple as the event in question straight? Accepting such as the absolute word of God may explain war, all by self.
Could it be that you are the ambassador of a proved hoax? Me thinks so. Good luck converting those with IQ's above 15. I know! I know it can be explained. That's what doctoring divinities is all about, explaining it. Doctor, sick, hand in glove.
January 19, 2007 12:30 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 19, 2007 12:30
Betty -
I see, and understand. You are operating on the most basic rules of high school and freshman grammar, and are hoping to see to it that I am vilified for not conforming to such a basic level. Or at least made to feel shame for not being held back by your very basic conception of the rules of grammar.
The sentence in question is indeed complete, should one actually take the time to think of the structure. I would lend you my copy of Rules For Writers, simply as a primer, and indeed my copy of the Modern English Handbook, if it were possible, and if I thought it would be of any use to you. Or, if you would prefer, I still have a copy of a high school English textbook in my closet.
AFC -
We might all face the deity in whom we have faith, should our beliefs include an ultimate judgement. And I respect that you have that belief, and shall face that judgement. I, though, shall not face your diety, but my own, who does not judge.
I have not yet taken the time to read the rest of your most recent statement, so I cannot yet comment on it, though I suspect it is well-thought out, and shall give me something to think about, and a bit more insight into Christian faith and belief.
As I am looking at the final paragraph, though, I think that it may well indeed be truth we are after. Or, perhaps, understanding - not neccessarily for others to understand us, but for us to understand others better. For the most part.
Mas'ke tÿ'e.
(To all, understanding spirit grant)
January 19, 2007 11:29 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 19, 2007 11:29
Betty-- my apologies as well. I must have misunderstood your comment and the implications that would follow. Please accept my sincere apology.
Duchess-- Thank you for your comments. You are most certainly entitled to your own opinion and thoughts and I'll be the first to fight for that right. Forgive me for a rather quick response however. I have stated in other threads why I believe in God and the reasons for why I accept the deity of Jesus Christ. (The question as to if Jesus was the Son of God was a topic on this site a few weeks ago.) So, my line of thinking is that if God exists and Jesus is the Son of God, then his revelation to human beings (the Bible) does have ultimate authority. We may not recognize that authority in this life, but if the claims of the Bible are true, we will all ultimately face the God who has that authority in the life to come. I hope this helps to clarify my meaning from my earlier comments.
Ba'al-- Also, thank you for your response and giving me an example of a proposed contradiction of the Bible that we can discuss. I will attempt to explain this example, but I state at the outset that there are many folks more qualified than I am in completing this endeavor. If you google "bible contradictions answered", you can find many resources to address this issue.
Having said that, I need to begin with two ideas to keep in mind as we work through this example. First, we cannot assume that the Gospel accounts are intended to be exhaustive accounts of everything that took place. Case in point: John 21:25: "Now there are also many other things that Jesus did. Were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written." Therefore, we must operate under the assumption that what we find written in the gospels was what the author felt were the main points to be made.
The second idea to keep in mind is that the four gospels were written from four different perspectives. Consider the following example to illustrate this point: if four of us were standing at the four corners of a busy intersection and all of us witnessed a traffic accident, we all witnessed it from different perspectives. We each then provide our testimony of what took place to the police officer. Each of our accounts would agree on the main points, but would no doubt vary on some of the details because we all witnessed the accident from a different angle. Do our stories contradict each other? No, but when the officer writes his report, the four different accounts should complement each other and therefore give the officer a clearer understanding of what actually happened. The same is true when examining the gospel accounts. The details may vary, but they should complement each other to give the reader a clearer understanding.
With that in mind, I will now seek to answer your question. Your question stated: "Who were the first people to discover that Jesus' tomb was empty after the three days?" To respond to your actual question, the answer is true in all four gospels: Mary Magdalene and some of the other women were the first to see the stone rolled away and that the tomb was empty. In Matthew's account, he mentions that the Roman guards were present but ran away in fear when an angel from heaven came and rolled back the stone. The angel then speaks to the women. In Mark's account, again, we see that Mary Magdalene and others came and discovered that the stone was rolled away and that the tomb was empty. In Luke's account, the women (among them was Mary Magdalene) went to the tomb and found it empty. In John's account, he states that Mary Magdalene came to the tomb and saw that the stone had been rolled away. So, as you can see, all four accounts complement one another. They may vary on the exact details of how many women there were, but again that is because of the different perspectives of the authors. Just because John says that Mary Magdalene went to the tomb, he does not state that she went alone. He only mentions that she went. When I go to visit a friend of mine who is married with children, I usually state that I went to visit Jim, when in fact I visited Jim, Jane, and their three wonderful children. Again, remember that the gospel accounts are not to be understood to be exhaustive in their accounts. I hope that this attempt has answered your question.
Thanks everybody again for your comments. You have given me much to think about and study as I hope I have done for you. I hope that we can continue to address our differences in a civilized manner and continue to seek out the truth. Isn't that what we are all after in some shape, form, or fashion anyway?
January 19, 2007 10:46 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 19, 2007 10:46
Apologies to the Duchess
You have so intimidated me that I committed a typo sin in the post above.
the final section SHOULD have read:
BTW
your statement, and I quote:
"Merely a proponent of actually making use of them as they are meant to be used."
is not a complete sentence.
Please don't throw me in the dungeon.
January 19, 2007 9:52 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 19, 2007 09:52
The Duchess Rules
Your Grace: thank you for your lecture on grammar. Golly, you are condescending!! Guess it goes with the territory.
BTW
your sentence
"Merely a proponent of actually making use of them as they are meant to be used."
lacks a proper is not a complete sentence.
January 19, 2007 9:33 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 19, 2007 09:33
William J. Byron
I think you are on to a useful point. Women, on average, are more trusting than men. They are also more social and connected to life. That is part of our evolutionary heritage.
That would make them more susceptable to religion and the quasi-religions of parapychology and astrology. But that would explain only population statistics. An individual women remains free to think these matters through for herself, and we are all free to keep arguing about the merits of religion.
January 19, 2007 9:32 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 19, 2007 09:32
Bible Contradictions and Intelligence
AFc: you ask me to cite some.
If you are *really* interested, it is easy to find out.
I just googled "Bible contradiction" and got over a million hits. The first is a list of 506 contradictions.
So if you WANT to know the truth, it is revealed to you.
Sorry for misquoting you: that is an odious practice.
What you actually said was, and I copy you now:"There are many intelligent people in the world who do not even have a high school education, let alone a degree from Harvard. To imply that only those who are members of a professional society or have published in scientific journals and the like are the only intelligent people in the world is prideful and arrogant."
I agree it WOULD be prideful and arrogant IF I had implied that.
I stated my finding quite clearly.
Intelligence and belief in a personal good
are STRONGLY negatively correlated.
That DOES NOT mean ALL intelligent people have been published in scientific journals, and I never implied it did.
Your comment "is exactly what happens when folks deny the existence of God, deny the deity of Christ, and deny the authority of the Bible" is either paranoia, delusionism, or, most likely, the poisonous effect that fundmental belief has on reasoning power.
God bless you.
January 19, 2007 9:27 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 19, 2007 09:27
Fr. is absolutely right when he says that women have faith and that the institution has to have more respect for the women filled with faith. The institution kept me away from mass for a long time, but I never lost my faith in God. I lost my respect for the men who run the religion and who should have faith but instead love power.
January 19, 2007 9:12 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 19, 2007 09:12
Ambassador for Christ
It seems you're a Bible literalist Fine. Game's on. We'll start with this one. It should be easy. Who were the first people to discover that Jesus' tomb was empty after the three days? Make sure to check all of the gospels and then report what you find. In detail. After all, the devil is in the details, so to speak.
Since you brought up the Talking Snake, I assume that the Old Testament is in play too. But we can stick with just the gospels if you would prefer, or we can include Acts, the various letters, etc. You tell me.
January 18, 2007 11:22 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 18, 2007 23:22
JEN:
Faith-filled is the general acceptance of the supernatural. Heavy emphisis is made on the invalidity of all but God and Satan, (what Lucifer's name was changed to within the last 30 years) at Catholic schools. It doesn't work. Catholic women like all women have a supernatural sense that will not let God and Devil only into their faith, (faith is a meaningless word by itself as anyone should understand).
First lady Nancy Regan was credited with running the country while Ronald recovered from his all night, nightly dinner parties by sleeping until mid afternoon. She used astrological charts to make all the major decisions proving their validity, (the Regan administration, won the cold war, empowered the evangelicals, cut taxes and wasteful government spending on homeless people, leaped tall buindings in a single bound just to mention a few impossible to equal feats).
Faith is holding to the validity of any thing scientological like witch craft, fortune telling, lucky charms, ouji and many more like communicating with the dead, acts of God, visions, miracles, images on grilled cheese sandwiches, an almost endless list. The simple test to see if it applies to you is to answer the question. Do you read what's written on the little slip of paper in your fortune cookie?
Note: The philosophy of the Regan administration invalidates prayer altogether, "no free lunch" an expression that says you must earn your bread by the sweat of your face. We are allowed to pray for anything as long as it's something we don't want. Ronald also introduced us to the most terrifying words ever spoken short of a condemnation to hell, "we're from the government and we're here to help."
January 18, 2007 11:15 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 18, 2007 23:15
AFC -
To take one of your comments out of context, and ask for more clarity about it, as I am wary about your phrasing.
You state: "... deny the existence of God, deny the deity of Christ, and deny the authority of the Bible."
I would think that one's perception of deity (God, in your case), the figure of Jesus as prophet or deity, and the authority of a holy book (the Bible, in your case) is dependent upon the individual.
For my own thoughts, the first is none of my business. Deities have come and gone over the history of humans, and the existance of any of them makes little difference to me.
The second - I do not feel Jesus has any deity in my view, no matter how much deity he has in the eyes of others. I see him merely as one of the most sucessful cult leaders in history.
Third thought - a holy book has authority for those who follow the writings and teaching within it, but not for those who do not. Its authority is limited, and dependent on the individual and their faith.
January 18, 2007 11:13 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 18, 2007 23:13
Dear Betty,
Thank you again for your comments.
In your response, you said, "AFC has some kind words for the Bible. Nice book. Full of contradictions". I humbly ask that you cite some of those contradictions so that we can explore them in more detail.
You also said, "then AFC would have us believe that high school dropouts are on average more intelligent than the scientists at the American Academy." I humbly ask that you please refrain from putting words in my mouth. If you read my post carefully, I stated, "There are many intelligent people in the world who do not even have a high school education, let alone a degree from Harvard. To imply that only those who are members of a professional society or have published in scientific journals and the like are the only intelligent people in the world is prideful and arrogant." Nowhere in this comment do I suggest that high school dropouts are on average more intelligent than scientists. I merely stated that there are other intelligent people besides scientists in the world. But, the tactic that you used to twist my comment to fit your own argument is exactly what happens when folks deny the existence of God, deny the deity of Christ, and deny the authority of the Bible. In fact, this tactic goes all the way back to Genesis 3 when the serpent twisted the commandment of God to plant doubt in Eve's mind. I pray that those who read these posts do not give in to this tactic so easily.
January 18, 2007 10:53 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 18, 2007 22:53
Norrie Hoyt -
Thank you for clarifying your statement; it is much appreciated.
Betty -
I never did say I was perfect with my spelling, but I do attempt to actually use grammar rules properly. After all, one must be well aware of the rules, and capable of using them properly before one is able to break them. Nor is one permitted to break them indiscriminantly or with impunity.
They are not my "imperial dictates", simply the rules of the English language. I do apologize if you are unaware of those grammatical rules, but I am not responsible for how they evolved. Merely a proponent of actually making use of them as they are meant to be used.
One last point for now - "your majesty" is the address of a monarch, not a mere duchess, particularly in the English language. The appropriate address for a duchess is "your grace".
January 18, 2007 9:26 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 18, 2007 21:26
"Are women, by nature, more trusting? I can't say. Are women more likely than men to trust God and to entrust themselves to God? I think so."
------------
Women die in childbirth, not men.
Women are physically less strong than men.
How many men go off to war & have a near-death experience, & come back a changed man? Women do that every time they get pregnant.
How many times does a man mate with a stronger person than himself? Women do that all the time.
What you refer to as 'trust' is a requisite to having children for a woman. Those women who don't 'trust' don't usually get pregnant (leaving out sperm bank children & rapes).
Men & women are different.
A man can't really write accurately about a woman unless he's privy to a woman's deepest thoughts. And vice versa.
January 18, 2007 9:23 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 18, 2007 21:23
The Intellectual Objectivity of Ambassador for Christ (AFC)
AFC opines that the universe is so improbable, it must have been created by a God we have never seen, but must posit in our minds.
AFC does not realize, in her wisdom, that such a God is EVEN more improbable than the Universe "she" created. Read Dawkins on this point. I also got A's in statistics at very good colleges, so don't throw your weight around. Dawkins is much more intellectually and probabilistically acute than you appear to be. Read his refutation.
AFC has some kind words for the Bible. Nice book. Full of contradictions, acts by God that would get him convicted by the world court (Genocide, murder of children etc). Read Harris, end of Faith. the stylistic consistency of the national enquirer.
then AFC would have us believe that high school dropouts are on average more intelligent than the scientists at the American Academy. I thought Christian followers were not supposed to smoke that stuff.
January 18, 2007 8:33 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 18, 2007 20:33
The Dutchess implores me to use proper "Grammer", as she spells it.
I will attempt to behave according to my own dictates, your majesty, not to your imperial directives.
January 18, 2007 8:23 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 18, 2007 20:23
Lady Brimestone Court,
In response to your post of 11:33 a.m., directly following, once removed, my initial post in this thread, I'd respond:
I have no dispute with your statement that many highly intelligent women, with formidable analytic minds, have a deep belief in a conventional religion.
I didn't articulate it, but what I sensed in Fr. Byron's remarks was a rather old-fashioned, almost European, parish priest's attitude toward the women of his parish.
For example, Fr. Byron says that women "...have a better - far better - record as believers than men."
His view seems to be that belief is good and questioning belief is bad, and, as with schoolchildren, the girls in the school of the Church are better behaved than the boys.
Another quote: "Are women more likely than men to trust God and to entrust themselves to God? I think so."
I can just see the old-fashioned parish priest in Fr. Byron's statement, who sees himself as God's representative in the parish, liking the women who so easily and compliantly entrust themselves to the priest and accept his religious and social pronouncements unquestioningly.
In sum, I found Fr. Byron's essay rather patronizing of women. He thinks highly of them bcause they don't question.
January 18, 2007 7:24 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 18, 2007 19:24
the priest says this:
"Moreover, I have insufficient knowledge of the world's religions, so I'm not in a good position to assess how well or badly women have fared across the board."
If he doesn't know how badly women have fared across the board in the history of all religions, what does he know?
Why answer the question? Just admit you don't know what you're talking about.
Thank you.
January 18, 2007 6:34 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 18, 2007 18:34
Would anyone like to define "faith-filled" for me? It seems we are in disagreement about the term...the Reverend defines it as the ability to give oneself over to God wholly...but how is he measuring this?
In a sense, the Reverend is saying that women are more likely than men to give in to blind belief in God. Is he saying this because more women than men approach him and express sentiments and thoughts that suggest this position? Did it ever occur to him that men in general are less prone than women to express feelings of submission, which is exactly what it means to give oneself over to God wholly? One is submitting to God's will, completely and totally. That is the Reverend's definition of faith. I'd bet most men don't feel comfortable saying those words, much less to another man. Perhaps because women are used to submitting to men in their daily lives, submission to God doesn't feel so unnatural.
Then there is the other question: what ramifications does this definition of faith have on the impact of religion in our daily lives? If one believes, as do most Christian fundamentalists, that the bible is the word of God, then naturally entrusting oneself completely to God means total devotion to living according to God's word. In other words, every single passage in the bible should adhered to, without question. Houston, we have a problem...
Personally, I would like to express my total submission to God, where God is defined as my own psyche, in all its infinite and as-yet-unexplored magnificence.
January 18, 2007 5:55 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 18, 2007 17:55
Betty, I will must to assume anyone is an elite scientist for there is no approved test for elite scientist. There may be committees of scientists claiming to be able to create elite scientists, British Acadamey, etc. You do know that a camel is really a horse designed by a committee. Have you seen a preview of the new elite 5 humper?
January 18, 2007 4:48 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 18, 2007 16:48
Women APPEAR to be more "faith-filled" for several reasons. Church is first and foremost a social event. The ladies "best" dress themselves, their babies and insist their hubbys do likewise. Some men only wear suits and ties to church and never otherwise. Women are the spark plugs of that.
When they get to church it's time to "see and be seen" and they gab gab gab. They talk about everything and especially everyone that has nothig at all to do with faith.
Church is entertainment. Blakc churches seem to me to be the best at that sort of thing. They not only sing but the dance-in-place and even in the aisles.
Then comes the super star, God's direct representative with the Bible, God's absolute word. The Crystal Cathedral like St Peters fills to see the big man of God in his OFFICIAL robes. He has all those profound things to say and blesses them directly, in person. On special ocasions the press shows to take down those important words and report them to the world.
Have I left anything out? Oh yeah. God is in there somewhere but where is God? Who needs God when there's a certainty God's representative is there at church in person to bestow God's blessing on all present and condemn all that never come to hell. God comes last but God is not completely neglected otherwise the IRS would come to church too. The press will show if that happens.
January 18, 2007 4:36 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on