Hell Yeah! There is the TRUE religion--Biblical Christianity; There are a bunch of false ones--paganism; And there is no religion at all--atheism.Originally Posted by MJZiggy
Who's teaching kids atheism? Oh, I don't know; How about LIBERALS--secular progressive God-hating/America-hating/everything that is good-hating liberals?
What could be more GOOD and NORMAL and AMERICAN than Packer Football?
There's no point in discussing anything with Howard, he was given the links with detailed information and has proven to be far too much of a coward to try and discuss it. So he just acts like an ostrich with its head in the sand and tries to pretend the information isn't there. Then he throws out insults to try to change the subject.While not a complete atheist, I do take issue with this. It is the atheists who have usually, thought about, struggled with and ultimately rejected the religions of their families. They are the ones who have thought things through and not blindly accepted what they were taught. If religion is correct, then which is it? Is it the religion that says that the moon gave birth to the earth? I recall one about a giant holy crocodile. Are the Taoists right about creation or is it the Buddhists? Maybe the Hindus or is it some tribe in Middle Africa that has it right?
There are a thousand creationist ideas, so which one is it that's right? Yours? Why is that? Is it because it's what your church told you to believe?
Howard the Coward is proof positive of the original posters question about religion retarding scientific discovery (or religious retards inhibiting scientific discovery).
The ad hominem started here:There's no point in discussing anything with Howard, he was given the links with detailed information and has proven to be far too much of a coward to try and discuss it. So he just acts like an ostrich with its head in the sand and tries to pretend the information isn't there. Then he throws out insults to try to change the subject.While not a complete atheist, I do take issue with this. It is the atheists who have usually, thought about, struggled with and ultimately rejected the religions of their families. They are the ones who have thought things through and not blindly accepted what they were taught. If religion is correct, then which is it? Is it the religion that says that the moon gave birth to the earth? I recall one about a giant holy crocodile. Are the Taoists right about creation or is it the Buddhists? Maybe the Hindus or is it some tribe in Middle Africa that has it right?
There are a thousand creationist ideas, so which one is it that's right? Yours? Why is that? Is it because it's what your church told you to believe?
Howard the Coward is proof positive of the original posters question about religion retarding scientific discovery (or religious retards inhibiting scientific discovery).
I read your deeply informative crap from Wiki and responded:How 'bout reading up on things before posting crap.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_eye
http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/200...runc_sys.shtml
(etc.)
It seems religious beliefs also suppress one's ability to google.
Pull your angry scientist head out of the ground yourself and respond.Explain to me (yourself, not The Googles) why the semi formed nonfunctional eye offered a selective advantage. And at what stage in evolution did it occur, thus insuring that all vertebrates have the exact same basic infrastructure? And why did the semi formed nonfunctional eye give an advantage in all environments simultaneously, so that in the end every species had the same basic template?
After lunch the players lounged about the hotel patio watching the surf fling white plumes high against the darkening sky. Clouds were piling up in the west… Vince Lombardi frowned.
So lets see, you are saying C14 dating is not accurate and can't be reliable, and the tree rings are not reliable because they don't agree with the C14 datingMS, the dirty little secret about your "overlapping tree ring" thing is that prime factor contradicting it is not the Bible, but carbon 14 dating--which dates the "8,000 year old" logs to be only 4,000 years old.The fact that we have overlapping tree ring data going back 11000+ years throws a monkey wrench into your ramblings.
Potassium dating can give younger dates due to it's decay product (argon) being a gas. However that's far from the only option in radio isotope dating. U-Pb dating is much more reliable, especially when using something like zircon crystals which can incorporate uranium during formation, but not lead, so lead inside the crystal is a result of decay.
To believe in this 6000 year old garbage requires you to believe in a god who is a liar and a deceiver (with gods like that who needs a devil). You're welcome to worship that sort of god, but count me out.
Since there are no trees 8,000 years old, they take logs that they speculate to be 8,000 years old, and try to match some of the outer rings with some of the inner rings of newly cut trees--very inexact.
The oldest trees ever found--Joshua trees or Sequoia redwoods, both in California--are around 5,000 years old, both very consistent with the idea of seed plants originating 6,000 years ago.
Of course you have your information backwards as well, since uncalibrated C14 dates are older than the calibrated ones.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioca...ng#Calibration
Inconsistent and inaccurate in a single post. I guess that explains why you believe what you do.
I read your deeply informative crap from Wiki and responded:How 'bout reading up on things before posting crap.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_eye
http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/200...runc_sys.shtml
(etc.)
It seems religious beliefs also suppress one's ability to google.
Pull your angry scientist head out of the ground yourself and respond.[/quote]Explain to me (yourself, not The Googles) why the semi formed nonfunctional eye offered a selective advantage. And at what stage in evolution did it occur, thus insuring that all vertebrates have the exact same basic infrastructure? And why did the semi formed nonfunctional eye give an advantage in all environments simultaneously, so that in the end every species had the same basic template?
I took you post as indicating you did not read it as instead of you completely not comprehending what you read. At no time was the eye nonfunctional. Photoreceptors are functional. Photoreceptors in a pit are functional, and directional. A deeper pit with a smaller opening gives better directionality and leads to a pinhole camera style eye which produces basic images. Etc, etc. All stages functional, all could confer selective advantages.
Furthermore a human eye has a blind spot, and can suffer from things like detached retina. These are products of the backwards nature of the human eye, that is the light passes through the neurons and blood vessels to get to the rods and cones, and the neurons have to go back through the retina at the optic nerve (blind spot). When you look at a squid, it's retina, it's retina is laid out in a more straight forward way with the neurons and blood vessels behind the photoreceptors. This makes sense as an artifact of evolution. Without evolution, are you saying that god likes squid better than people? The the intelligent designer was using a buggy genetic compiler? Insufficient QA for the deadline of populating earth?
Interesting how you chop the key sentence out.
If and when Jesus shows up...i know you'll be in favor throwing him in guatanomo. Radical middle easterner, promoting radical ideas about peace, socialism, etc.
If not guantanamo then at least call ICE. We can't have any illegal aliens in our country.
1. Semi formed eye. Who knows? There are various reasons that being light sensitive might benefit a creature. But, it isn't a far leap that being light sensitive might help against predators.Explain to me (yourself, not The Googles) why the semi formed nonfunctional eye offered a selective advantage. And at what stage in evolution did it occur, thus insuring that all vertebrates have the exact same basic infrastructure? And why did the semi formed nonfunctional eye give an advantage in all environments simultaneously, so that in the end every species had the same basic template?Already answered by a previous post.Remenber, I am dense. Tell me how I am wrong.Howard, are you really serious. They eye? Statistically impossible. C'mon.From what I understand, physics and math don’t back up the theory.
Take Creation out of the discussion…..what are the other competing theories about the origin of species?
How did new species evolve?
How do explain the evolution of one very small component of species…..the eye? That one tiny part of the whole body is said to be statistically impossible to have evolved. And that’s just one part of the whole. Is it time? Just throw more time at the problem?
I am not trying to be confrontational, I am interested in your answers.
Atheists are ignorant sheep, saying whatever they are told to say by their masters in the zeitgeist.
Although maybe you guys are those intermediary beings who have not yet fully evolved intellectually, so I guess in that sense your existence makes a compelling argument for your case.
2. Stage. Why is that important for me? I don't know. Just like you don't know that god created them. If eyes are god's creation..why did he create so many that failed? Or, in we believe in evolution..emerged and then
withered away.
3. Species. You show an alarming lack of knowledge. Several different eyes came and went.
But, thank you for mentioning species..as every stage in scientist's theories of eye development exists in species living today.
Sheep. You are so right. Why should i look at the many writings of scientists, learned men and women, etc...when i can base my beliefs off of one book written in the bronze age.
You're failing to read, MS.So lets see, you are saying C14 dating is not accurate and can't be reliable, and the tree rings are not reliable because they don't agree with the C14 datingMS, the dirty little secret about your "overlapping tree ring" thing is that prime factor contradicting it is not the Bible, but carbon 14 dating--which dates the "8,000 year old" logs to be only 4,000 years old.The fact that we have overlapping tree ring data going back 11000+ years throws a monkey wrench into your ramblings.
Potassium dating can give younger dates due to it's decay product (argon) being a gas. However that's far from the only option in radio isotope dating. U-Pb dating is much more reliable, especially when using something like zircon crystals which can incorporate uranium during formation, but not lead, so lead inside the crystal is a result of decay.
To believe in this 6000 year old garbage requires you to believe in a god who is a liar and a deceiver (with gods like that who needs a devil). You're welcome to worship that sort of god, but count me out.
Since there are no trees 8,000 years old, they take logs that they speculate to be 8,000 years old, and try to match some of the outer rings with some of the inner rings of newly cut trees--very inexact.
The oldest trees ever found--Joshua trees or Sequoia redwoods, both in California--are around 5,000 years old, both very consistent with the idea of seed plants originating 6,000 years ago.
Of course you have your information backwards as well, since uncalibrated C14 dates are older than the calibrated ones.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioca...ng#Calibration
Inconsistent and inaccurate in a single post. I guess that explains why you believe what you do.
What I said--and what the consensus of science is--is that Carbon 14 dating is only accurate to about 4,000 years. Are you familiar with the graph of a hyperbola? That's C 14 dating as you get out to around 4,000 years.
This ring dating thing has never found a tree or even an old log with 11 thousand or 8 thousand or whatever rings--nothing more than a thousand or two of that variety of tree, nothing more than 4 or 5 thousand of any tree. What they have found is logs with several thousand rings which they claim to have matched up the outer things of with the inner rings of recently cut logs--like there could be any remote hope for scientific accuracy in that. The old logs they use are presumed to be 8,000 years old. The Carbon dating tended to disprove that presumption.
It's pretty ludicrous the lengths these anti-Christian loons will go to try and sling mud at our predominant--and TRUE-- religion.
What could be more GOOD and NORMAL and AMERICAN than Packer Football?
From my perspective, it does not take much courage in this day and age to profess one’s atheism or to be an agnostic. The Christians of the world are the ones who take the scorn of the so called sophisticated. We are bombarded in all media with anti-religion and anti-Christian messages constantly.While not a complete atheist, I do take issue with this. It is the atheists who have usually, thought about, struggled with and ultimately rejected the religions of their families. They are the ones who have thought things through and not blindly accepted what they were taught. If religion is correct, then which is it? Is it the religion that says that the moon gave birth to the earth? I recall one about a giant holy crocodile. Are the Taoists right about creation or is it the Buddhists? Maybe the Hindus or is it some tribe in Middle Africa that has it right?
There are a thousand creationist ideas, so which one is it that's right? Yours? Why is that? Is it because it's what your church told you to believe?
It matters not what I, or you, believed when we were growing up. Nor for that matter does it matter one iota whether or not you or I believe or don’t believe. Belief does not make it true. It either is or isn’t true.
You are probably already aware of these authors and books, but if not, they give a nice account of atheists who became theists or deists, and then moved to Christianity (in the case of Lewis).
C.S. Lewis:
Mere Christianity http://www.amazon.com/Mere-Christian.../dp/0060652926
Surprised By Joy http://www.amazon.com/Surprised-Joy-...8372432&sr=1-1
Antony Flew (notorious ex-atheist now a deist)
There Is A God http://www.amazon.com/There-God-Noto...8372479&sr=1-1
Also, check out this interview/book…..
http://www.amazon.com/God-World-Conv...8374577&sr=1-2
These will give a much better answer than I could to your questions....if they are true questions.
After lunch the players lounged about the hotel patio watching the surf fling white plumes high against the darkening sky. Clouds were piling up in the west… Vince Lombardi frowned.
That's Dostoevsky from 'Brothers Karamazov.' A section entitled 'The Grand Inquisitor.' I was reading a newer translation (Pevear and Volokhonsky) as opposed to the old standard Garnett translation and ran across those lines with science referenced. The section basically centers around the Inquisitor having Jesus as his prisoner and telling Jesus that people don't want his freedom, rather they want 'Miracle, Mystery, and Authority.' - and of course bread. It explores the Devils' three challenges to Christ in the desert. It's fantastic literature - I highly recommend it. Since people are talking about atheists, it's interesting to note that Dostoevsky was an atheist and became a believer saying 'My hosanna came forth from a crucible of doubt.' He wrote 'Brothers' in an effort to answer all the questions about religion that he had. He said basically that his religious critics couldn't even conceive of so strong a denial of God as he presents and answers in 'Brothers.' If you are an atheist or skeptic, you will identify with Ivan (who essentially serves as that aspect of Dostoevsky's mind), and if you are a believer you will identify with the naive and devout Alyosha. But I guarantee this, if you read the book, you will never be the same afterwards, regardless of what you believe.A pretty gloomy outlook! Who gets credit for that quote? Or did you write it yourself?
I took you post as indicating you did not read it as instead of you completely not comprehending what you read. At no time was the eye nonfunctional. Photoreceptors are functional. Photoreceptors in a pit are functional, and directional. A deeper pit with a smaller opening gives better directionality and leads to a pinhole camera style eye which produces basic images. Etc, etc. All stages functional, all could confer selective advantages.
Furthermore a human eye has a blind spot, and can suffer from things like detached retina. These are products of the backwards nature of the human eye, that is the light passes through the neurons and blood vessels to get to the rods and cones, and the neurons have to go back through the retina at the optic nerve (blind spot). When you look at a squid, it's retina, it's retina is laid out in a more straight forward way with the neurons and blood vessels behind the photoreceptors. This makes sense as an artifact of evolution. Without evolution, are you saying that god likes squid better than people? The the intelligent designer was using a buggy genetic compiler? Insufficient QA for the deadline of populating earth?
Atheist fundamentalists all seem a little too touchy for my tastes. I think the presence of a person who thinks differently than you scares you. I find your frantic posts amusing, as you hurl invective all those who dare to deviate from your fundamentalist positions. You remind my of some religious people I have met – angry, afraid of other ideas, head in the sand, not willing to listen to those who do not exactly agree with you.
As for the eye/retina; I'm sure the same crowd that is mesmerized by bright shiny spinning objects is also impressed by your use of jargon. But buried in you meaningless jargon (yes, I understand the histology and physiology of the eye, it is actually not that difficult to understand), is an interesting phrase, "all stages functional, all could confer a selective advantage." What if they didn't? It seems farfetched to me that they all did. I think it requires a lot of faith to believe that all of those strange configurations resulted in a selective advantage in the environment hundreds of millions of years ago, an environment that we cannot possible comprehend. But that is something you have an abundance of - faith. Your blind faith in your belief system is more impressive than the faith of most Christians I know. Maybe you'll tell me that "of course the intermediary stages conferred a selective advantage, because we have the eye today." Please don't do that. The illogic of such a statement would be beneath such a high end thinker as you.
So animals evolve. So what? You may be surprised to hear that I believe in that wholeheartedly. I am debating with you because fundamentalists like you scare me. Nowhere in this thread have I talked about Intelligent Design or Creation. The reasonably elegant, though extraordinarily lacking, theory of evolution probably partially explains some of the observable facts about the natural world. I'm not the one trying to use a crowbar to make this specific 19th century scientific theory (described a hundred years before the discovery of DNA) explain everything is the cosmos. You are. And you seem to be very angry with anyone who might not think that a 19th century British scientist didn't explain everything from why there is an eye to why some marriages fail. But guess what? Darwin's theory is not able to explain everything under the sun. So your attempts to take this modest theory and force into contortions for which it is completely unsuited will only continue to anger you, and will force you to continue to ridicule kind, gentle people like myself, who just happen to believe something different than what you believe.
After lunch the players lounged about the hotel patio watching the surf fling white plumes high against the darkening sky. Clouds were piling up in the west… Vince Lombardi frowned.
Ahhh, God, the Null Hypothesis.
Pardon the digression, but I found this somewhat amusing:
[quote="HowardRoark"][quote]Take Creation out of the discussion…..what are the other competing theories about the origin of species?
quote]
Well here's one that has been surpressed more than any religious organization in the known history of our planet:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sumer
In short, around 6000-7000 years ago we were created by a race of highly intelligent people, (for the record, the only thing that differs between us and them is their brain capacity, we are only capable of using 10% of our brains, yet they are able to use a much higher percentage, although i am not sure as to the accurate perentage) genetically engineered in THEIR image, thats why when you read the bible it says "God made man in his image", the bible, according to fact, is a shortened version of the original creation story, The Book of Enoch, and key elements of higher knowledge are omitted from the Bible for control/power reasons. That is why it does not make sense.
Religion is the ultimate tool of control, the scholars of past knew this, and thats were we get Christianity from. There is a reason why Jesus was crucified and three day later rose from the dead. He is a sun God, which was later changed to The Son of Man/The Sun of God.(http://www.dailygrail.com/node/5736) His resurrection has more to do with astronomy then anything else. Horus, the God that the ancient Egyptians worshipped, was also a sun God. Strangley enough he was also born on the 25th of December and was crucified and died? Coincidence?
The problem with religious people is that they tend to take their beliefs as fact and truth, because after all, that is exactly what the religion asks of you right? The will do anything to justify their "truth". By doing so they ignore common sense, logic and practicality, this is how you get ignorance. Religious people are ignorant not because they choose to be, but because that is exactly what the religion asks of them. Trust me i used to be a Catholic(and a devout Catholic at that, or so i thought!) before i stumbled onto a little more TRUTH, i know EXACTLY how they think, it is irrational, and one would do just about anything to prove his faith is truth, even senseless murder, in the name of religion. Speaking of murder, did you know religion has killed more people over the last 2000 years than all the history's war's(not including religious wars!) and dictatorships combined? The numbers aren't even close. Also in the dark ages if you were caught with any type of book, you were killed, nobody but the Catholic church was allowed to read books for a very long period of time. That was the type of control that they had back then. A religious person will come in and try to justify the last few sentences, saying something like "well we were much less intelligent than we are today blah blah", but the fact of the matter is that there is something sinister going on behind the scenes about which people are kept in the dark. As the saying goes, where there is smoke, there is fire.
Religions ultimate weapon of control is fear, it is the fear that gets you, after all, all i have to do is believe in Him and i will have eternal life in heaven, right? And if i choose not to i will go to burn, for eternity? Well in my mind, i know which one im choosing, hmmm eternal pleasure or eternal pain? Common sense indicates that this answer is pretty simple.
That is another problem with religion. It does not take you anywhere spiritual-wise, because that is not in its design, the way in which it is set up is to hold you down. Keep each other bickering about stupid shit like you are, it teaches you from a young age not to ask questions, and to just take things at face value, it has no critical aspect. 95% of "religious" people i run into have absolutley no spiritual side to them, yet they make bold claims and walk around with an air of superiority because they think they know something more than you, and that they are better than you. The other 5% actually know most of these things, and they are much more normal and civil than regular believers, in terms of their arrogance(or lacktherof). Religion actually hinders your spiritual growth, im speaking from experience, there are so many bullshit rules you must follow that its practically impossible to live up to, and 100% of Christians break at least one command DAILY, i guarantee you.
DO NOT mistake true spirituality for religion, they are two completely different things, one is practical and the other is not. Thats not to say religion is not a beautiful thing, because it is, but in terms of its practicality, there is zero to none in my opinion. In other words what im trying to say is that there are really good aspects about religion(i.e. the commandments, the theme of forgiveness, and also prayer/meditation) but if they are not applied intelligently there is absolutely no spiritual growth to be had.
In summing up, im not trying to demean anybodys beliefs in anyway, but im sorry in advance, because i know the truth hurts, it did when i first found out, and it completely flipped my view of the world upside down. But if you are truly a seeker of truth and not a follower of religion, you will find your path and undertake your own spiritual journey for the quest of ultimate knowledge.
Peace and much love
HOFer
Most people that grew up Catholic aren't religious anymore because they grew up Catholic. j/k
No.all i have to do is believe in Him and i will have eternal life in heaven, right?
Disagree whole-heartedly, but I've never been Catholic. Maybe to those 95% of people you talk about. (I don't think the number is 95%, but it's probably a much bigger percentage than most people would care to admit.)It does not take you anywhere spiritual-wise, because that is not in its design, the way in which it is set up is to hold you down.
I tend to agree with this, but I wouldn't classify the others as true believers. I'm not sure what a regular believer is. Probably not a true believer.The other 5% actually know most of these things, and they are much more normal and civil than regular believers, in terms of their arrogance(or lacktherof).
I don't think there are that many rules and I think we all have the God given ability to follow them. However, I know very little about Catholicism. Of course, everybody is a sinner, but it's about your conviction.there are so many bullshit rules you must follow that its practically impossible to live up to, and 100% of Christians break at least one command DAILY, i guarantee you.
I always find it interesting and disheartening to find so many people that grew up in the Catholic faith that have turned from Jesus Christ completely. I guess I should be thankful that I grew up in an agnostic family and came to know Christ on my own.
As a Catholic, I would argue that it is not so much religion (Catholicism, in my case) that stifles spirituality. What often stifles spiritual growth is secular and political concerns that often cause people to disregard what their religious faith should be telling them. Pope John Paul II was bitterly opposed to the invasion of Iraq, and the invasion did not meet the Catholic Church's requirements of Just War Doctrine. Most Catholics however, disregarded the Church's stance on the war, and were swayed by the drumbeat for war by the secular press.
It is a tendency to be swayed by secular and political concerns and judgments (War is necessary, abortion is choice, capital punishment is deterrence) that causes Catholics to ignore their religion and turn away from spirituality.
APB's views on the rigidity of the Catholic Church seem a bit pre-Vatican II to me. Things are not as rigid as they once were, although there are conservative sects within the Church who would like to go back to what they regard as the good old days. Yes the bishops can seem a bit rigid, but they are not the only voice of the Church. John Dear, a Jesuit priest, author and peace activist has a considerable following and has been nominated for a Nobel Peace prize. Dorothy Day, who co-founded the Catholic Worker movement, may be canonized a Saint some day, These are strong spiritual voices who are also very much Catholic.
Ring the bells that still can ring
Forget your perfect offering
There is a crack, a crack in everything
That's how the light gets in - Leonard Cohen
You know what i mean, not in that sense, just trying to exxagerate it a little.Quote:
all i have to do is believe in Him and i will have eternal life in heaven, right?
No.
Yes the number is probably not that high, but a good majority of them are exactly as described.Quote:
It does not take you anywhere spiritual-wise, because that is not in its design, the way in which it is set up is to hold you down.
Disagree whole-heartedly, but I've never been Catholic. Maybe to those 95% of people you talk about. (I don't think the number is 95%, but it's probably a much bigger percentage than most people would care to admit.)
[/quote]I always find it interesting and disheartening to find so many people that grew up in the Catholic faith that have turned from Jesus Christ completely. I guess I should be thankful that I grew up in an agnostic family and came to know Christ on my own.By the way, i dont mean to say that a God does not exist, like i said in my previous post, the religion itself is fairly good in its message and there is plenty of truth to it. But the people that run it and the intention for which it was created should lead people to be skeptical. God exists, so take it easy, enjoy your life, live it to the full and dont get too caught up in the small time game that these elitists are currently playing with us.
It is clear to me Harvey, that we have a different meaning for the terms "religious" and "spiritual". What im trying to say to you is that there is a level of spirituality that is attainable, that goes beyond any level religion claims to have. I am not trying to degrade your beliefs, im just trying to make you aware of the fact that you can get more than you are currently getting by exploring other avenues, that doesnt mean you have to give up Jesus Christ, people seem to think that there is only one way, but different people are more receptive to different kinds of paths of information.
Peace and much love
Yes there is truth to that as well, but in my opinion for secular and political concerns to arise one probably does not have an appropriate view of the situation, or knowledge(through either ignorance of opinion, or some form of negative reaction that stifles the clear thoughts), so one must do their own research into the matter, but 95% of people believe the media are being honest around 80% of the time, whereas realistically it is more like 25/75. Still, at the end of the day know one held a gun to your head and forced you to vote this way or that. Its still up to the individual.[As a Catholic, I would argue that it is not so much religion (Catholicism, in my case) that stifles spirituality. What often stifles spiritual growth is secular and political concerns that often cause people to disregard what their religious faith should be telling them.
If you dig a little deeper you will find that the Catholic Church was a fairly big player in this whole game, but its up to you to find out that information on your own, i do not want to be the cultivator of bad fruit.Pope John Paul II was bitterly opposed to the invasion of Iraq, and the invasion did not meet the Catholic Church's requirements of Just War Doctrine. Most Catholics however, disregarded the Church's stance on the war, and were swayed by the drumbeat for war by the secular press.
Yes this is the extreme minority of people that i was talking about, the 5%! They are the pinoeers of the future, a future that can exist with or without religion. 5% is not nearly good enough however, considering the other 90%-95% of people that lose there way along their own journey.John Dear, a Jesuit priest, author and peace activist has a considerable following and has been nominated for a Nobel Peace prize. Dorothy Day, who co-founded the Catholic Worker movement, may be canonized a Saint some day, These are strong spiritual voices who are also very much Catholic.
Peace and much love
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote