I'm sitting here watching the Cards and Royals, and it occurs to me that St. Louis has not even begun to play up to their abilities. And that may well be an outlandish statement, given their record (42-29, 2nd, NL Central). As for the Royals, their record (28-42, 5th, AL Central) is not at all a reflection of their talents. They need more walks. Not enough runs? Get on base; the most hit-challenged teams can get lucky runs with men on base. The pitching is pretty good. But I could be crazy. Doubtless Mr. Hall would say I'm simply "choking on Coke and belligerent comments."
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