Note to women: If your profile on Facebook in the "Books" section says, "I don't read books," don't worry, I won't bother you. It may be that I don't read the right books; that said, the worst offense in "the game" to me is a certain uncuriosity. Even if it were a kind of sliding scale...wait, wow, that would have to be...no, nevermind. That level of attractiveness (to balance out the uncuriosity) cannot be reached.
Hilarious Com-Box Quote of The Day: "I was caught immediately because it is the Acts of the Apostles, not the Acts of the Holy Spirit Acting Erratically."--Donald Todd, reacting to the inartful opposition of the Holy Spirit and the Magisterium. Mark Galli, an editor at Christianity Today, had suggested that today's "confusion" in evangelicalism replicates a confusion on the day of Pentecost. Mr. Todd commented after this reply , and the original article is here. My thoughts: By what means was this Church-less "consensus" formed? If the Council did not possess the authority to adjudicate such questions, who does? If the Council Fathers did not intend to be the arbiters, why do they say that they do? At the risk of being rude, I would define evangelicalism as, "Whatever I want or need to believe at any particular time." Ecclesial authority to settle a particular question is a step forward, but only as long as, "God alone is Lord of the con
Comments