Timothy17

Proportional representation sounds nice ; however, it is a leaning toward a more anarchtic model of governance, and away from the responsibility model. PR would, we can safely imagine, create a plethora of diverse parties and membership, thus necessitating more alliances, coalitions, etc., which tend to require more party-to-party political agreements, along with appendage personal agreements (to more individualistic members) to determine and maintain, the people being left to judge its fruits afterward (in a future election), and never certain how the next Parliamentary crop will organize itself. PR increases the amount of minority governments you will get. I cannot think of any PR democracy that is not run by coalition governments ; furthermore, I know that the Western powers were earnest to impose PR democracy on Germany, most likely to neuter unity in its polity and ensure a compromise-minded governance, with lots of links that could be easily broken. Few people like personal responsibility and accountability, especially people who do not want to be held responsible for the things they want to do, or their failures ; however, it is necessary for clarity in this, especially in democratic government, so the people can exercise their indirect governance by replacing bad apples (hopefully with better ones.) Committee-style government, while it seems more expansive and inclusive, tends to diminish personal accountability and responsibility, giving people an incentive to be more bold, daring or reckless than they might otherwise be, imagining that the group diminishes their personal culpability in whatever consequences actions or policies have. Pax, Tim

I do not doubt that Islam has an animus inimical to the ultimate welfare of mankind ; however, I believe that though it should be resisted and repudiated that, nonetheless, imagining it to be some monolithic force operating in unison toward singular goals is an exageration of its capabilities. Islam consumed itself many times during the Medieval ages, with one sect dethroning and usurping or revolting from the overall polity time and time again. Again, Islam needs to be openly resisted and repudiated, and it is scandalously dangerous to present an image of Islam as being somehow neutral or almost ornamental ; nonetheless, exagerating its efficaciousness could cause undue, needless or unnecessary reactions to it. Pax, Tim

On the "Nature" of Evil. Please understand the error in the thread title. It is a classical heresy, of Gnostic origin, to imagine that nature is or can be "evil" or that even "evil" has a "nature." Evil is anti-nature. Saying evil has a nature is like saying darkness has a light. Darkness is the absence of light ; likewise, imagining evil to have a "nature" would make it something akin to heat, which increases or decreases measurably. Evil does not "increase" properly speaking, evil is more akin to "cold" or "coldness," which - like light to darkness - is the absence of itself. Objectively speaking, there is no such "thing" as cold or darkness, because it is the absence of something. Evil is, therefore, the absence or loss of good. Nature is a Good. Consider Genesis, in which God gives his approval of everything he had made, declaring it was "good," even "very good." Evil is a defect or, even more accurately, a perversion of nature, which ultimately goes against nature, and hence evil begets death, which is not "natural." "The wages of sin are death," in the words of the Apostle. What Evil Is : Perversion of Free-Will To understand evil, we must first grasp God's gift of free-will. God gave certain of His creatures, the human and angelic, free-will. He did not create mindless zombies, but out of His own, overflowing, life-giving love, made us in His image (free-will being a part of this, a kind of sovereignty and self-determination) as well as likeness (pure "goodness"), which we consequently lost in the Fall. The gift of free-will means we can authentically love God ; that is, we can love with a genuine and authentic love, free from coercion of any kind. The consequence for going against goodness, for breaking or losing Faith, was the loss of His likeness ("God is faithful, He is not as a man who changes his mind.") ; nonetheless, we retained something of His "image" in our free-will, which would now, consequently after the Fall, be subjected to the constant hazards steming from the disorder and perversion evil "causes." What the Early Christians Taught About Evil The classical Christian philosophers always understood of evil a potential defect originating from, but necessary for, authentic free will. God cannot, however, be evil or contain any evil, for that is the absolute contradiction, denial, and anti-thesis of Himself. Consider that even the words "free" and "will" confess that they needs have some sort of independent, self-determining capacity, lest it not properly be styled "free" and consequently unable to "will" anything. In us creatures, we have such a capacity. Notice, however, that in the height of even human love, we foresake our own free-will, and sacrifice it, as it were, and hand it over to another. In traditional marriage, the man and the woman gift to one another all that they are, and return it. The greatest act of love we can make is to deny ourselves our own free-will for the sake of another. The Revolt in Heaven Christians know that man, though created after the angels, was placed or destined to be above the angels in the celestial court. God Himself would (the angels knew perfectly) condescend to take upon Himself our nature, and owing to this man would be elevated, as it were, in celestial status, and by consequence be above the angels, even served by them. This love of God for His creature, man, is the source of the angelic corruption, possibly because it created a scandal that tempted the first revolt. It is believed that, out of pride, Lucifer was determined to "justify" his angelic nature's superiority to man. This is, of course, self-righteousness. It was as if Lucifer was saying, No, no ! Look upon the goodness you have given me, and take this upon yourself ! We angels will not suffer you to condescend down to the things of man ! Contrast this to what the Lord said to Peter, after Peter tried to persuade Him not to take up His Cross, [21] From that time Jesus began to shew to his disciples, that he must go to Jerusalem, and suffer many things from the ancients and scribes and chief priests, and be put to death, and the third day rise again. [22] And Peter taking him, began to rebuke him, saying: Lord, be it far from thee, this shall not be unto thee. [23] Who turning, said to Peter: Go behind me, Satan, thou art a scandal unto me: because thou savourest not the things that are of God, but the things that are of men. The devil chose his stratagem in the garden so as to maximize the damage done. By poisoning, as it were, mankind, all of creation, which was bound up in and to him, would also suffer, and so the entirety of creation would "groan," as the Apostle says, "for the revelation of the sons of God." The Consequences of Evil ...Are depravity, madness, irrationality, disorder, confusion, chaos, et. al. I said earlier we could understand evil, but I speak most humanly. We call things crazy, insane, mad, etc., because they are beyond understanding, owing to their being irrational, contradictory, etc. Evil is like this. It cannot, properly speaking, be understood, as if it somehow made sense. It is, ultimately, utter depravity. It causes these things because it is contrary to nature, which is good. Evil and vice deprive, destroy, and take away from good. Evil is, at its core, "nothingness," for as the Creed confesses, we were, originally, made out of nothing by God. Without God, we would return to nothing. Ultimately, there is nothing in or of us that is not in some way bound or dependent upon God. The horrors of hell, for the Christian, is depicted as pain and suffering for all eternity, such is the dread imagined by the loss of any communion with our God, Who is all-love, all-goodness ; however, theologically speaking, Hell is the complete absence of God, and hence we can "taste" a little bit of what hell is like here on Earth, owing to the consequences of evil ; nonetheless, not even this compares to the complete absence of God, of goodness in life. About the Devil. Lucifer, which name is from Latin, and means Light-Bearer, as we know from the Scriptures he is wont to masquerade as an angel of light, to boldly lie and offer to men the abyss of darkness, though calling it light, is more commonly known as the devil, though there be many devils. He is depraved - it is important to understand this. In his folly, he may have known full-well that by his revolt and rebellion God would actually facilitate our salvation, our elevation ; nonetheless, what he did was irrevocably evil and unforgiveable. He cannot claim ignorance. He cannot claim temptation, as man can, he cannot claim duress or fear or any thing else we men must suffer owing to his (the devil's) treason. The angels have the beatific vision before them always. They share in the very mind of God. Having rebelled, they loose this, and retain only their essential nature as angels. Lucifer, therefore, no longer knows the mind of God, and hence why Lucifer had no idea that by betraying Jesus in Judas he was actually facilitating the very thing he wanted to prevent ; namely, man's justification. Realizing he was tricked, as it were, he went even more mad ; that is, became even more depraved, and knowing that his time must soon end, he sought and does still seek the utter destruction of man and souls, knowing how dear these are to God, but also knowing this is pure vanity ; nonetheless, what God has done is irreversible, and hence the prophecy at the beginning of Scriptures after the Fall, "you shall strike her heel, but she shall crush your head." This is why Judas hung himself. He so despaired of what he had done he chose not to carry on living with the guilt he had acquired for himself ; nonetheless, his sin is even worse by this fact, for he denied God's love and forgiveness. Even Judas could and would have been forgiven by his Master, Jesus Christ. He was possessed, according to Scriptures, the moment he assented in mind to do as the devil would do. Judas' own depravity in mind ; namely, condescending to betray the Son of God and Saviour of Mankind, our Great King, was so perverse and heinous that every devil and demon on earth found an abode in him, not surprisingly, we find him despairing and hanging from a tree. Notice the parallel pictures : Jesus hung from a Cross, made of wood from the tree, and Judas, who betrayed Him, hung also from a tree. There was a law that said anyone who hung from a tree was cursed. Jesus hung from the Cross that the curse would be brought upon Himself, though he be innocent ; Judas, to condemn himself by that curse, such was his hatred of his own self, such was the ultimate consequence of his own depravity. Judas made himself his own judge. God, in Christ, took upon Himself our sorrows, our burdens, our punishments, and bore them for us. His loving goodness is such that He takes away our sins from us. He gifts to us salvation, though we by no means earned it, and we are left to choose to either accept this gift, and have life, or else reject it, and choose death : we can suffer the life-giving Wood of the Cross, which is of a dead tree, or we can hang ourselves from a living tree. Disclaimer : This is all quite difficult, and I ask the reader to take the general picture drawn and not obsess on any particular points, for I fully admit that there may be errors, owing to my limited understanding ; nonetheless, I submit all I shall write to the teachings of the Magisterium of Holy Mother Church, and to all learned men of good-will everywhere. Pax, Tim

While I especially find the whole "conservative white men" bit apt and fitting for your label, I must say, however, that his Islamist-socialist connection is fairly tenable, as Islamic states are also, very often, socialist in construction, as evidenced by a lot of state-management of industry. Whether this has anything to do with organized Western socialism/socialists demands concrete evidence of such a relationship, however. I think Mr. Canada would do better if he were to assert that Islamists make use of a combination of economic socialism, Islamic social organization (Sharia law), and absolute political autocracy. I think that paints a more realistic picture of Islamic idealism in the middle east. Pax, Tim

False, for several reasons : I) Hypocrisy. Seeing as I was once a child I have a logical, definite and natural interest in ensuring that nascent life is protected, lest I be found advocating my own murder. I have a right to be alive, and so does everyone else. II) Responsibility. It wouldn't matter if every man on the planet were to abandon themselves to hedonism and perfery, they are still morally, naturally and legally responsible for the consequences of their actions and therefore have a duty to "bear," "raise," and "provide for a child." III) Incredulity, on your part : Trying to eliminate my constitutionally guranteed right to free speech in order that you can espouse a fallacious opinion without resistance is self-serving and, ultimately, logically necessary, as it is readily evident that your justifications for those erroneous views are untenable, and therefore require a measure of censorship in order to prevent opposition to it. No one is renting your womb. The only time a woman's womb can be construed as being "rented" is when a child happens to be making its habitation there, and no one has yet got it into their head to later demand the child pay compensation for the space he or she occupied during that time ; therefore, this accusation is specious (at best), and furthermore, no one has a right to kill an innocent human being, and this is absolutely certain, and universally recognized. Why should abortions be legal ? How is it you advocate to defend something but you feel compelled to insist that it also be rare ? Why should it be rare if it is perfectly moral and even a right ? No one says speech should be "rare," or property should be "rare," for example. How come, then, abortion is the only supposed "right" (it is not actually a right) that is ideally rarely exercised ? Pax, Tim

When did he say this ? Source(s) please. Furthermore, this supposed "close association" with the US' military (as opposed to, or in conjunction with, U.S' administration(s), politicians, businessmen, etc. ?) : what is the basis for this claim of close association with the U.S ? It is bantied about as if common knowledge, which is fine of course, if it is true. Pax, Tim

It is obvious that only organized parties have the ability to take over the operations of the State. Every picture I have heard painted of the protestors is that they are animated and united by a spirit for change, and nothing more. This undermines their ability to control the course of events. At present, it seems the military will be doing this. My gut tells me that the Egyptian military is very likely more secular than most people might otherwise imagine, though naturally, of course, extremely nationalistic. It would be interesting to know exactly why the military didn't support Mubarak, i.e., were his policies detrimental to the military or oppose their common ideology or ideal of/for Egypt ? Are they expecting to benefit from a new government, and if so, in what way ? Too many questions and not enough answers.

We sure can, if it ultimately be a fault. "The people," we are being told, want to be the government. Thus, they are -insomuch as they are personally responsible- culpable in the consequences of what that government does, again, assuming a negative turnout. Let's hope it is not. Pax, Tim

I am half-American. But that is not what you had earlier said. You said Christians were somehow trying to "insert" something into your womb. Even if Christians do not believe abortion is moral, and were succesful at ending abortions, in neither case could they ever be charged with inserting something into your womb. You constructed your argument so as to make it seem as if Christians wanted to violate your womb in some way. They do not. For over a thousand years abortion was equivocal to murder in every Western nation. The radical change was the legalization of abortion, under the pretenses of shady, eugenics-inspired pseudo-science that asserted a human foetus is somehow not human, and cannot, therefore, be a person, and thus not under the protection of the laws of the land. The first demands for state-sanctioned or sponsored abortions, and crude and primitive forms of birth control, came from the social-engineers of the early 20th century who wanted all "undesirables" destroyed, so that such persons wouldn't pose any threat to the supposedly superior white race, and so they specifically had in mind the encouragement of sterilization and abortion in minority communities, which was indeed sanctioned by laws and practiced in some of the several States. Those suffering from natural defects were also forcibly sterilized. Under these digusting auspices did abortion and proto-birth control have their intellectual justification, cultivation and ultimate propagation. To this day, minority communities are often the largest victims of these practices. Furthermore, Christians believe each human being is unique and endowed with personhood and an invisible soul at the moment of their conception. We do not believe that a person should be punished for the crimes another person committed, and hence, even in tragic cases of rape or incest, the child should not be punished in any way, and certainly not with death, for the crimes of their parent. Pax, Tim

The denial of objective realities is a serious intellectual problem, and it has its seeds in bad philosophy and education, steming back to the early 20th century. Existentialism, nihilism, et. al., all imbibe into young minds that there is no ascertainable truth or definite rights or wrongs, corrects or incorrects, despite the student being subjected to over a decade of absolutely having to know, understand and memorize facts, rules, and laws, without which their minds could not even comprehend in any tangible way the idea that everything is necessarily equal or relative, false as that idea is. These errors are, therefore, self-destructive, because if they are followed through to their logical ends, even the ability to comprehend these fictions would be lost, and naturally with it the possibility of projecting them to future generations. Indiscriminate tolerance is a brainchild of these errors that demands toleration of anything and everything, except those who do not tolerate such an absurd philosophy. Such persons are labeled "intolerant" and evicted from discussions, regardless of the obvious hypocrisy. Pax, Tim

Duplicate post. Please delete and see above.

No, it does not help me to understand, because you re-asserted the same fiction I debunked previously ; namely, that Christians advocate anything be "inserted in [your] womb" or "in [your] body." Exactly what are Christians supposedly demanding be inserted therein ? Pax, Tim

I have heard that name bantied around, and even so as to impress on my mind and memory that perhaps they are suggesting they may take over or play a role in whatever new government is formed ; nonetheless, exactly who is "suggesting" this to be the case ? After New Year's, an old, beautiful Coptic Church in the metropolis of Alexandria, Egypt, had a car explode out front of it while Holy Mass was being celebrated, killing scores of people and injuring several times more. Al-jazeera had a high-quality picture of the front of the Church, at night, with it being surrounded by a cohort of riot police. Splashed against the front pillars of the Church was the blood of some poor victim(s). This happened just a month before the uprising, and so far I have neither seen nor heard any mainstream news commentary even speculating if there is any connection. Clearly, this was an intimidation tactic, at minimum, intended to frighten the Coptic Christian community of Egypt. If your above assertions here are correct, this does not bode well for the Coptic Christians, who may be facing a similar necessary mass-exodus from their native country in the days ahead, just as the Chaldean Catholic Christian community (a half-million strong) was forced to flee Iraq since the American occupation of that country, after being terrorized with bombings, murders, kidnappings, threats of mass executions, etc. THEREFORE, I would be very interested in the source of your information here. Pax, Tim

Why must all differences be respected ? I think President Sarkozy is not thinking things through when he paints with such a broad brush. Clearly there are differences we are lawfully bound not, and never, to "respect." I believe, for example, in fighting for the defense of my country, and that involves not betraying the same. If, especially in a time of war, my fellow-soldier declares that he believes differently, and intends to betray us, and then has the audacity to demand I respect this difference between us, I will, nonetheless, report him, and I am sure my superiors will say such a man is an existential threat to the nation. Furthermore, I think it likely that my superiors will say that fancying to betray your country is an opinion that must not be in any way respected, lest in doing so one becomes culpable of aiding or abeting in treason. On the other extreme we find another problem. If my nation were to suddenly declare itself Marxist, for example, must I become a Marxist and "melt" into that culture, even if it is, by its nature, opposed to the native culture and traditions of the people of the country (e.g., the Cultural Revolution in China brought about by Mao) ? The question then becomes, exactly which culture is the authentic "national" one ? Is it the culture of the present majority ? Or is it linked directly to the beliefs of a certain corpus of people, such as, for example, in America the founding fathers of that country, and their intellectual and cultural descendants ? These are serious considerations that need to be made, thought-through and flushed-out before we make such sweeping statements as President Sarkozy has done, I believe. Pax, Tim

"Born-again" Christians can't possibly be in your womb. It won't be a Christian inserting a suction tube into your womb so as to vacuum your nascent child out of it. Nor will it be a Christian giving you toxins or poisons intended to kill or abort the same. What you, with the assistance of a necessary third party (which will never be Christian) does to your child in your womb has nothing at all to do with Christianity, because Christians do not kill their offspring.

The policies towards ensuring the Christian nations remain Christian will be another point of conflict between the Christian people and our enemies who wish to see us washed away.

Pease read the thread title. jbg, I see this is now the third time you ressurected a quote or thread of mine since I disagreed with your personal, positive opinion on Obama's program for recommending euthanasia as a simple cost-saving mechanism to elderly persons. In all three instances you have taken a combative and insulting tone. That these comments and threads are over three months old shows that you made the effort to seek out and find specifically my comments, apparently for no other reason than to attack them. Based on this I have serious reservations about entering into a debate with you, as it would seem you are not interested in learning or discussing the subject matter, but rather desire only to provoke. Tim.

That men and women are different is obvious, and that this difference is naturally ordered to be complimentary, and thereby mutually beneficial, ought also be obvious. Nature does instruct a "one size fits all," namely marriage and family life. When we deviate from the traditional arrangement of a loving home, we find bold increases in deviancy of every kind, especially in the children, who are the primary victims of failed marriages and homes. In fine, it is the children (and thus the future of the nation) that suffer most when the traditional concepts of home and marriage are assaulted or abandoned. It undermines the family unit, which is the basic foundation for all national life, and thereby necessitates increases in state management of national life, with the state having to become a surrogate, as it were, for parents and families.

You already commented on my post earlier, so I'm curious why you duplicated and expanded your original post with this more aggressive one ? You mention the missile crisis. JFK remained at his post even though he was potentially in reach of those missiles. He did not abandon his post and showed an act of solidarity with the American people who also lived under that same new threat, a threat he succesfully removed. JFK was shot dead, so I will not hold it against him for not completing the work he wanted to do in regards to Civil Rights or speculate on who would have done a better job (whether him or LBJ). As for your final remark (that JFK was "a sorry excuse for a human being") I will say this : I imagine you are at least in agreement with one other human being ; namely, the man who murdered him.

That's what I figured, flight Too bad for you, and for America. Hopefully someone not afraid to tackle tough issues with real solutions will present themselves.

Then man-up. Any coward can cow from a fight, any sloth can choose not to bother, but real men do not capitulate to adversity. The signal reads fight, not flight.

It's cowardly at least ; at worst, an out-right abandonment of our duty to life. Misanthropy, under whatever guise or manifestation, should be resisted by all citizens of good will with strength and vigilance. We are not livestock.

If Canada builds a "wall of seperation" between Church and State, then it builds a wall between me and "the" State, because it simply wouldn't be "my" State anymore if I was not permitted to speak my beliefs in it, especially where it matters or counts most, in Parliament ; in Law. The whole "seperation of Church and State" mentality is a bit of a joke, because the Church is a seperate and independent institution by establishment, law and structure, and generally the problems were the State intruding on the Church, not vice-versa. Read any history of the Popes and the endless threats they lived under from not only hostile alien religions threatening their religion with invasion, but puffed-up, supposedly "Christian" monarchs threatening to invade them and depose them for trying to keep the Church seperated from State intervention and abuse. Christians have tolerated a secularized state, even though we see the family falling to pieces and the children of the last few generations being utterly corrupted by secularization. We have sat by and watched our children, friends and neighbours be debauched and sexualized. We have attended too many weddings and witnessed too few marriages. We have watched our nation happily commit self-suicide and depopulate itself through an inordinate love of money and preference for wordly success and goods. We have watched men and women neuter themselves like dogs. We tolerate the will of Parliament - you don't see Christians organizing French or Red October revolutions - but so many of the secularists loose their heads imagining a Prime Minister or Parliament who might sit and share their thoughts on God. We have watched intellectual after intellectual, and politician after politician, defend mass murder as being fitting sacrifices on the altars of their perverse "freedom." We are called whackos and reactionaries, yet are we the one's starting threads along the lines of, "ZOMG! If Christians are allowed to speak about God on TV or in front of the nation we are all doomed ! They'll start an inquisition and they'll burn us all alive in the name of God !" Then it is we who are called stupid and charged for having lunatic beliefs. People still believe the Church arbitrarily executed tens of millions of people in Medieval Europe for simply having opinions or beliefs, then it is we who are charged for clinging on to myths or fabrications. Before 9/11, we were charged with a random act of nonsensical violence for launching a Crusade to reclaim the Holy Lands against the far more intellectually, culturally superior and peace-loving Muslims of the Middle Ages, and all of this pseudo-history manages to be retained in the public psyche even though we are supposedly all blessed with a secular education system that so benevolently hands on the Enlightenment to each and every one of our nation's youth. We send our children to the nations "higher" places of education, which have their roots and founding in and out of Christendom, only to watch these institutions further debauch, jade and sexualize our future. I am Canadian, and I am a Christian. There is no reason for these things to be opposed to each other, and there is no reason I should gag myself about something that is fundamentally and universally good. I could keep my Christianity all to myself and watch as everyone else floats about mindlessly lost in confusions, tribulations and misery without a clue as to why they find themselves so helplessly bound to that state of things. I could do that, but I won't, and I won't watch my nation and my countrymen be robbed of the immense, rich and beautiful patrimony their culture and forefathers have bequeathed to them, often at serious peril and risk to themselves, always with immense personal sacrifice for something they believed and knew to be good, to be better. There is no reason for a Christian to be ashamed of being a Christian, and no reason to imagine Christianity is unreasonable, and the desire of so many to squash and censor the Christian Spirit and Voice is nothing more than ignorance manifesting itself, and then necessarily clinging to tyranny to protect itself from criticism. Before modern man stands Church and State, each offering him liberty, freedom, truth, and the brazen and obvious contradictions between each torment the thoughtful mind as God, giving us each the light of reason to varying degrees, ultimately knows and understands that truth cannot be contradictory, and it cannot be opposed to itself. It is because of this, I think, that so many secularists don't want to see an opposing view, prefering to believe those things that give him some sense of stability and assurance in this life ; ultimately, however, the very heart and nature of Christianity is the Gospel, which by definition is something to be announced, something to be championed, and the Faith we carry in our hearts presses upon those hearts to share itself with any and all who will receive it. So you can ban the talk of God or Christianity from the public spaces, you can mock and ridicule it whenever opportunity presents, but even with all this wasted energy you will never be able to hide forever from God's desire to inform you that there is another way, there is a better way, and that you are invited to share in that life, in His newness of life, to the joy of your heart, your mind, your body and very being.

If JFK was "mafia trash," then I wish the mafia would field more candidates He was one of the greatest, and most inspirational leaders in human history. Men like JFK give people at least a modicum of hope for the deeper decency of mankind. Het set a high bar on what we should expect from those who would rule us. Tim

I think you would find your notion here sorely mistaken. Not all religions are anti-intellectual ; in fact, my religion fosters and encourages it. I have never been more challenged to think and learn than by the doctrines and doctors of my Faith. Pope John Paull wrote in his encyclical, "Fides et Ratio," "Faith and Reason are like two wings, on which the human spirit rises to the contemplation of Truth..." Hardly a statement we would imagine from someone who doesn't want people to think, reason or learn. The monopolization of science as used by certain atheists has, to an extent, on one hand left people feeling robbed or alienated while on the other leaving people feeling as if they are under attack. In my Faith we believe our Faith is itself a gift and a patrimony that we are to further explore and deliver on to the next generation as we found it, pure and undefiled : I think it is owing to this feeling that the Faith is itself a patrimony for all mankind that we likewise feel scientific knowledge is also a kind of patrimony that likewise should be treated respectfully, explored, developed and delivered on. I can confidently say that my Faith is an ally for any pursuit of Truth or understanding as such, and fears not the conclusions or results, because as a mature Faith it is confident that with greater study, and greater understanding, we can but only discover the Truth that is God. Tim