Posted on 06/03/2023 8:49:28 AM PDT by fidelis
(Daily readings from the USCCB)
“I shall ask you one question. Answer me, and I will tell you by what authority I do these things. Was John’s baptism of heavenly or of human origin? Answer me.” Mark 11:29–30
This is Jesus’ response to the chief priests, the scribes, and the elders when they approached Jesus in the Temple area and asked Him by what authority He did the things He did. And what was it that Jesus did? The day before, Jesus had been in the Temple and drove the money changers out, telling them, “Is it not written: ‘My house shall be called a house of prayer for all peoples’? But you have made it a den of thieves.” This outraged the religious leaders, and they immediately began to discuss how they could put Jesus to death.
Consider, first, the tension in the air. They literally were plotting to put Jesus, the Son of God, to death. They were filled with hatred and jealousy and refused to believe in Him. Jesus saw their hardness of heart and put them on the spot to first answer His question before He would answer theirs. Why would Jesus do this?
The question Jesus asked them was actually an act of great mercy on His part. He gave them an opportunity to repent. If they had only answered His question with humble faith and honesty, they could have saved their lives.
Instead, they discussed among themselves His question and gave the politically correct answer. If they had said John’s baptism was of human origin, and not from God, they were afraid that the people would turn on them. So they simply said, “We do not know.” But imagine if they would have given the right answer. What if they had discussed it among themselves and concluded that John’s baptism truly was from God and that they should have believed in him? If they would have only humbled themselves, admitted that they had gravely erred in regard to John, then Jesus would have answered their question, and their life of true faith could have begun. But they didn’t. They remained obstinate. They could not admit they were wrong.
Obstinacy is among the most dangerous of sins. It’s a sin that cannot be forgiven, because, in essence, it’s a refusal to change. And when a person refuses to admit their sin, and refuses to change, then God cannot help them. They remain lost in their sin and suffer the consequences.
Do you struggle with obstinacy in your life? Do you find it difficult to admit when you are wrong? Do you find it difficult to apologize to another and seek to change?
Reflect, today, upon anything you remain obstinate about. Are there matters of faith that you refuse to believe? Are there broken relationships that you refuse to humbly restore? Do you justify your sin and refuse to admit your guilt and need to change? Pray to our Lord for the gift of a humble heart. Humility, in many ways, is nothing other than being completely honest with yourself and others before God. Do not follow the example of these religious leaders. Humbly seek to remove all obstinacy from your heart so that Our Lord can enter in and bring His mercy into your life.
My unwavering Jesus, You confront those who are proud, arrogant and obstinate with much strength and love. You do so to help them overcome their stubbornness of heart. Give me the grace of humility, dear Lord, so that I will always be able to admit my sin and turn to You in love. Jesus, I trust in You.
Amen
Sorry, I can't let the politically correct personal pronoun abuse go unchallenged.
Huh?
The person who wrote the essay used the plural personal pronoun “their” where the writer should have used the singular personal pronoun “his.”
Examples:
Joe and his friend love their dogs.
Joe loves his dogs.
In the first sentence, I used the plural “their” because I am referring to more than one person. Joe has a dog, and his friend has a dog.
In the second sentence, I am referring to just one person, Joe, so I used the singular “his.” Joe loves his dog means Joe loves Joe’s dog, so it would make no sense to say Joe loves their dog.
In case you think I am nitpicking, I maintain that this goes beyond grammar rules. There is a push to change the language to accommodate the pervert agenda. The propaganda tells us that we are all supposed to be “gender fluid” now, so we need to erase the concept of gender in language usage.
Did I answer your question?
In an instance where a pronoun is not indicated or unknown, gender-neutral pronouns provide a useful option.
"Although their is generally used in a plural form, it is also used as a gender-neutral personal pronoun in place of his or her."
"Someone left their purse on the subway."
Your source is “woke” I am guessing.
Why don’t you go see?
Throughout the history of the English language, pronouns have evolved to adapt to the circumstances of the times. The plural they shifted to a singular they several centuries ago,
I have seen similar claims. Again, I am calling “woke” on it.
Just went here. I consider it a reliable source.
https://www.grammarly.com/blog/personal-pronouns/
Grammarly says:
Using he or she and him or her is preferred by most style guides, but informally, a singular they is often used.
If a customer wants to speak to a manager, they can phone after 10 o’clock.
The singular they is deemed acceptable usage by the Associated Press, Merriam-Webster, and several other language guides.
^^^^^
My opinion has not changed, as I have noticed that the AP and Merriam-Webster are definitely involved in pushing the leftist message.
There is, in reality, no all-powerful, overarching authority on grammar, it is just what is commonly accepted year to year, month to month, even day to day.
Cite any source and watch as I show you how that
source has evolved over time. And then, also cite the source that THAT source cites as its authority.
There is NO authority beyond what is commonly accepted usage. There is NO possible argument you can make against that.
What you are doing is equivalent to arguing how wet water is and saying how wet you say it is HAS to be accepted as the ultimate authority of how wet it is. Pour some water in the palm of your hand, then close your fist. Get it?
I understand what you are saying. Language has, of course, evolved, as it must do because it is a tool that we use every day. There are, however, usually sets of standards for what is considered correct usage. These are changing much more rapidly in our life times because of our accelerated forms of communication.
But in this particular area I see an agenda, and I refuse to accept it.
We will need to agree to disagree on this subject, I suppose. Over and out.
Not necessarily at all.
It isn’t necessarily agenda based. I guess one could consider the source as far as determining that but even then it can’t really be known why the term “their” was used. Not worth the trouble IMHO
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.