Posted on 07/22/2007 7:40:38 PM PDT by xzins
Wednesday, 11 July 2007
Yesterday's Reuters headline: "The Vatican on Tuesday said Christian denominations outside the Roman Catholic Church were not full churches of Jesus Christ." The actual proclamation, posted on the official Vatican Web site, says that Protestant Churches are really "ecclesial communities" rather than Churches, because they lack apostolic succession, and therefore they "have not preserved the genuine and integral substance of the Eucharistic Mystery." Furthermore, not even the Eastern Orthodox Churches are real Churches, even though they were explicitly referred to as such in the Vatican document Unitatis Redintegratio (Decree on Ecumenism). The new document explains that they were only called Churches because "the Council wanted to adopt the traditional use of the term." This new clarification, issued officially by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, but in fact strongly supported by Pope Benedict XVI, manages to insult both Protestants and the Orthodox, and it may set ecumenism back a hundred years.
The new document, officially entitled "Responses to Some Questions Regarding Certain Aspects of the Doctrine on the Church," claims that the positions it takes do not reverse the intent of various Vatican II documents, especially Unitatis Redintegratio, but merely clarify them. In support of this contention, it cites other documents, all issued by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith: Mysterium Ecclesiae (1973), Communionis notio (1992), and Dominus Iesus (2000). The last two of these documents were issued while the current pope, as Cardinal Ratzinger, was prefect of the Congregation. The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith was born in 1542 with the name Sacred Congregation of the Universal Inquisition, and for centuries it has operated as an extremely conservative force with the Roman Catholic Church, opposing innovation and modernizing tendencies, suppressing dissent, and sometimes, in its first few centuries, persecuting those who believed differently. More recently, the congregation has engaged in the suppression of some of Catholicism's most innovative and committed thinkers, such as Yves Congar, Hans Küng, Charles Curran, Matthew Fox, and Jon Sobrino and other liberation theologians. In light of the history of the Congregation of the Faith, such conservative statements as those released this week are hardly surprising, though they are quite unwelcome.
It is natural for members of various Christian Churches to believe that the institutions to which they belong are the best representatives of Christ's body on earth--otherwise, why wouldn't they join a different Church? It is disingenuous, however, for the leader of a Church that has committed itself "irrevocably" (to use Pope John Paul II's word in Ut Unum Sint [That They May Be One] 3, emphasis original) to ecumenism to claim to be interested in unity while at the same time declaring that all other Christians belong to Churches that are in some way deficient. How different was the attitude of Benedict's predecessors, who wrote, "In subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions appeared and large communities became separated from full communion with the [Roman] Catholic Church--for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame" (Unitatis Redintegratio 3). In Benedict's view, at various times in history groups of Christians wandered from the original, pure Roman Catholic Church, and any notion of Christian unity today is predicated on the idea of those groups abandoning their errors and returning to the Roman Catholic fold. The pope's problem seems to be that he is a theologian rather than a historian. Otherwise he could not possibly make such outrageous statements and think that they were compatible with the spirit of ecumenism that his immediate predecessors promoted.
One of the pope's most strident arguments against the validity of other Churches is that they can't trace their bishops' lineages back to the original apostles, as the bishops in the Roman Catholic Church can. There are three problems with this idea.
First, many Protestants deny the importance of apostolic succession as a guarantor of legitimacy. They would argue that faithfulness to the Bible and/or the teachings of Christ is a better measure of authentic Christian faith than the ability to trace one's spiritual ancestry through an ecclesiastical bureaucracy. A peripheral knowledge of the lives of some of the medieval and early modern popes (e.g., Stephen VI, Sergius III, Innocent VIII, Alexander VI) is enough to call the insistence on apostolic succession into serious question. Moreover, the Avignon Papacy and the divided lines of papal claimants in subsequent decades calls into serious question the legitimacy of the whole approach. Perhaps the strongest argument against the necessity of apostolic succession comes from the Apostle Paul, who was an acknowledged apostle despite not having been ordained by one of Jesus' original twelve disciples. In fact, Paul makes much of the fact that his authority came directly from Jesus Christ rather than from one of the apostles (Gal 1:11-12). Apostolic succession was a useful tool for combating incipient heresy and establishing the antiquity of the churches in particular locales, but merely stating that apostolic succession is a necessary prerequisite for being a true church does not make it so.
The second problem with the new document's insistence upon apostolic succession is the fact that at least three other Christian communions have apostolic succession claims that are as valid as that of the Roman Catholic Church. The Eastern Orthodox Churches, which split from the Roman Catholic Church in 1054, can trace their lineages back to the same apostles that the Roman Catholic Church can, a fact acknowledged by Unitatis Redintegratio 14. The Oriental Orthodox Churches, such as the Coptic and Ethiopic Orthodox Churches, split from the Roman Catholic Church several centuries earlier, but they too can trace their episcopal lineages back to the same apostles claimed by the Roman Catholic Church as its founders. Finally, the Anglican Church, which broke away from the Roman Catholic Church during the reign of King Henry VIII, can likewise trace the lineage of every bishop back through the first archbishop of Canterbury, Augustine. In addition to these three collections of Christian Churches, the Old Catholics and some Methodists also see value in the idea of apostolic succession, and they can trace their episcopal lineages just as far back as Catholic bishops can.
The third problem with the idea of apostolic succession is that the earliest bishops in certain places are simply unknown, and the lists produced in the third and fourth centuries that purported to identify every bishop back to the founding of the church in a particular area were often historically unreliable. Who was the founding bishop of Byzantium? Who brought the gospel to Alexandria? To Edessa? To Antioch? There are lists that give names (e.g., http://www.friesian.com/popes.htm), such as the Apostles Mark (Alexandria), Andrew (Byzantium), and Thaddeus (Armenia), but the association of the apostles with the founding of these churches is legendary, not historical. The most obvious breakdown of historicity in the realm of apostolic succession involves none other than the see occupied by the pope, the bishop of Rome. It is certain that Peter did make his way to Rome before the time of Nero, where he perished, apparently in the Neronian persecution following the Great Fire of Rome, but it is equally certain that the church in Rome predates Peter, as it also predates Paul's arrival there (Paul also apparently died during the Neronian persecution). The Roman Catholic Church may legitimately claim a close association with both Peter and Paul, but it may not legitimately claim that either was the founder of the church there. The fact of the matter is that the gospel reached Rome, Alexandria, Antioch, Edessa, and other early centers of Christianity in the hands of unknown, faithful Christians, not apostles, and the legitimacy of the churches established there did not suffer in the least because of it.
All the talk in the new document about apostolic succession is merely a smokescreen, however, for the main point that the Congregation of the Faith and the pope wanted to drive home: recognition of the absolute primacy of the pope. After playing with the words "subsists in" (Lumen Gentium [Dogmatic Constitution on the Church] 8) and "church" (Unitatis Redintegratio 14) in an effort to make them mean something other than what they originally meant, the document gets down to the nitty-gritty. "Since communion with the Catholic Church, the visible head of which is the Bishop of Rome and the Successor of Peter, is not some external complement to a particular Church but rather one of its internal constitutive principles, these venerable Christian communities lack something in their condition as particular churches." From an ecumenical standpoint, this position is a non-starter. Communion with Rome and acknowledging the authority of the pope as bishop of Rome is a far different matter from recognizing the pope as the "visible head" of the entire church, without peer. The pope is an intelligent man, and he knows that discussions with other Churches will make no progress on the basis of this prerequisite, so the only conclusion that can be drawn is that the pope, despite his protestations, has no interest in pursuing ecumenism. Trying to persuade other Christians to become Roman Catholics, which is evidently the pope's approach to other Churches, is not ecumenism, it's proselytism.
Fortunately, this document does not represent the viewpoint of all Catholics, either laypeople or scholars. Many ordinary Catholics would scoff at the idea that other denominations were not legitimate Churches, which just happen to have different ideas about certain topics and different ways of expressing a common Christianity. Similarly, many Catholic scholars are doing impressive work in areas such as theology, history, biblical study, and ethics, work that interacts with ideas produced by non-Catholic scholars. In the classroom and in publications, Catholics and non-Catholics learn from each other, challenge one another, and, perhaps most importantly, respect one another.
How does one define the Church? Christians have many different understandings of the term, and Catholics are divided among themselves, as are non-Catholics. The ecumenical movement is engaged in addressing this issue in thoughtful, meaningful, and respectful ways. Will the narrow-minded view expressed in "Responses" be the death-knell of the ecumenical movement? Hardly. Unity among Christians is too important an idea to be set aside. Will the document set back ecumenical efforts? Perhaps, but Christians committed to Christian unity--Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant alike--will get beyond it. The ecumenical movement is alive and well, and no intemperate pronouncement from the Congregation of the Faith, or the current pope, can restrain it for long. Even if ecumenism, at least as it involves the Roman Catholic Church's connection with other Churches, is temporarily set back a hundred years, that distance can be closed either by changes of heart or changes of leadership.
LOL!
Of course His sacrifice was "retroactive." Remember St. John Chrysostom's Paschal (Easter) homily Kolo posted so many times? Remember the icon of Christ breaking down the gates of hell and pulling out of the hands of death the OT righteous? (that's not biblical though!).
My point was that until His sacrifice on the cross, no one was saved. But He made it possible for the whole world to be saved, past, present and future.
My only problem is with the appearance of Moses at Mt. Tabor.
So, are you saying that Jesus did not sacrifice for Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and all the prophets? Is there really more than one way to get to Heaven?
No & no. :)
LOL! back.
There is no joy at being left in spiritual darkness for all eternity. It's most definitely not "the same condition as prevails now." The unrepentant souls are not promised a picnic.
Imagine being blind, and never seeing sunshine, being deaf and not hearing sounds, being cold and not having slothes, being bujrnt bynthe sun and not being able to move. But God doesn't send us there. We do. Our words and deeds condmen us (and that is biblical), the way Adam and Eve condmened themselves by their choice.
Isn’t your god more a God of wrath by subjecting the unbeliever to live in the presence of those enjoying the benefits of salvation? Seems like He’s rubbing salt in the punishment and causing envy and jealousy
We won't even know each other (we will "be just like angels"); how are we oging to know those who are not spiritually even there, even it they may be physically alla round us?
But hopefully, we will have enough compassion not to take pleasure in their eternal darkness.
If by this you mean it has a specific location, coordinates in time and space, where on earth, or in the universe, do think it might be?
If not, what do you mean by "objective place"?
“If not, what do you mean by “objective place”?”
John 13:33, “Little children, yet a little while I am with you. Ye shall seek me: and as I said unto the Jews, Whither I go, ye cannot come; so now I say to you.”
36-37, “Simon Peter said unto him, Lord, whither goest thou? Jesus answered him, Whither I go, thou canst not follow me now; but thou shalt follow me afterwards. Peter said unto him, Lord, why cannot I follow thee now?”
John 14:1-3, “Let not your heart be troubled: ye believe in God, believe also in me. In my Father’s house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you. And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself; that where I am, there ye may be also.”
Jesus is speaking of a real place for the redeemed, and this is eshoed by Peter and John.
2Pet. 3:7, “But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.......(10) But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.”
Rev. 21:1, “And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea....(3) And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God. And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.”
Where the redeemed are there can be no unbeliever so there must be separation.
Isa 11:9, “They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain: for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the LORD, as the waters cover the sea.”
Isa 65:25, “The wolf and the lamb shall feed together, and the lion shall eat straw like the bullock: and dust [shall be] the serpent’s meat. They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain, saith the LORD.”
Ther resurrected body is a real, body of flesh just as Jesus’ was and eats, drinks, can be touched and occupies space. It is not subject to death and dying or other physical limitations but it is localized as Jesus was and is now at the throne of power.
We must agree to disagree over this point. An individual cannot cause another to love. (S)he can make it very easy, or hard, but to love - an action verb - requires the volition of the individual.
Now if saving grace pushes all the special buttons on the individual, then what is the temporal result? Are the elected somehow identifiable because of their commission and omissions on earth?
That’s quite correct on location.
We get to experience the Mississippi a day or so before you experience it. Right now, we’re experiencing a whole bunch of algae. Somehow it doesn’t quite mimic a real Irish Guinness.
I am grateful to you for the statement that you give them the Gospels and they give you the epistles in return. Even to the point of trumping the Gospels.
We understand that the Gospels are the pinnacle; the NT is to be viewed through the window of the Gospels and the OT is to be viewed through the window of the NT.
We are the followers of the Jews; they are our elder brethren and the chosen of God. I believe that I read a posting here somewhere that the LOTR was a good Reformed analogy; no - JRRT was a true blue Catholic and wrote the LOTR as a Catholic morality play. The Elves are analogous to the Jews. It’s just that we’ve been given God’s word version 2.0 and it’s up to us, now.
Open season on the Reformed? Not even I’d go there. :)
But it does lead to a good point: if the Reformed elect are to go to Heaven regardless of anything that they do or neglect to do, then why aren’t there mass suicides at the moment of realization that one is of the elect?
If Heaven is assurred, then why hang out here? Heaven is a whole lot better than here, so why not get there now? Anybody?
I’d like to bring notice of the Philosophy Department of the University of Wallamaloo, and their opinions of various philosophers, brought to you by Monty Python:
Immanuel Kant was a real pissant
Who was very rarely stable.
Heidegger, Heidegger was a boozy beggar
Who could think you under the table.
David Hume could out-consume
Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, [some versions have ‘Schopenhauer and Hegel’]
And Wittgenstein was a beery swine
Who was just as schloshed as Schlegel.
There’s nothing Nietzsche couldn’t teach ya
‘Bout the raising of the wrist.
Socrates, himself, was permanently pissed.
John Stuart Mill, of his own free will,
On half a pint of shandy was particularly ill.
Plato, they say, could stick it away—
Half a crate of whisky every day.
Aristotle, Aristotle was a bugger for the bottle.
Hobbes was fond of his dram,
And René Descartes was a drunken fart.
‘I drink, therefore I am.’
Yes, Socrates, himself, is particularly missed,
A lovely little thinker,
But a bugger when he’s pissed.
http://www.adelaide.edu.au/library/guide/hum/philosophy/philos_song.au alleged contains the audio.
Interesting.
I’d say that you’re ducking the question!!!
A robot slave doesn’t realize that he is a robot slave simply because he’s programmed not to. I still don’t get what God gets out of it either - if his goal is to create us the greatest of His creations and to have us willingly worship Him, then this predestination control would seem to preclude any willing worship.
There are two aspects of being cast in to hell.
New Advent has this to contribute:
The poena damni, or pain of loss, consists in the loss of the beatific vision and in so complete a separation of all the powers of the soul from God that it cannot find in Him even the least peace and rest. It is accompanied by the loss of all supernatural gifts, e.g. the loss of faith. The characters impressed by the sacraments alone remain to the greater confusion of the bearer. The pain of loss is not the mere absence of superior bliss, but it is also a most intense positive pain. The utter void of the soul made for the enjoyment of infinite truth and infinite goodness causes the reprobate immeasurable anguish. Their consciousness that God, on Whom they entirely depend, is their enemy forever is overwhelming. Their consciousness of having by their own deliberate folly forfeited the highest blessings for transitory and delusive pleasures humiliates and depresses them beyond measure. The desire for happiness inherent in their very nature, wholly unsatisfied and no longer able to find any compensation for the loss of God in delusive pleasure, renders them utterly miserable. Moreover, they are well aware that God is infinitely happy, and hence their hatred and their impotent desire to injure Him fills them with extreme bitterness. And the same is true with regard to their hatred of all the friends of God who enjoy the bliss of heaven. The pain of loss is the very core of eternal punishment. If the damned beheld God face to face, hell itself, notwithstanding its fire, would be a kind of heaven. Had they but some union with God even if not precisely the union of the beatific vision, hell would no longer be hell, but a kind of purgatory. And yet the pain of loss is but the natural consequence of that aversion from God which lies in the nature of every mortal sin.
The poena sensus, or pain of sense, consists in the torment of fire so frequently mentioned in the Holy Bible. According to the greater number of theologians the term fire denotes a material fire, and so a real fire. We hold to this teaching as absolutely true and correct. However, we must not forget two things: from Catharinus (d. 1553) to our times there have never been wanting theologians who interpret the Scriptural term fire metaphorically, as denoting an incorporeal fire; and secondly, thus far the Church has not censured their opinion. Some few of the Fathers also thought of a metaphorical explanation. Nevertheless, Scripture and tradition speak again and again of the fire of hell, and there is no sufficient reason for taking the term as a mere metaphor. It is urged: How can a material fire torment demons, or human souls before the resurrection of the body? But, if our soul is so joined to the body as to be keenly sensitive to the pain of fire, why should the omnipotent God be unable to bind even pure spirits to some material substance in such a manner that they suffer a torment more or less similar to the pain of fire which the soul can feel on earth? The reply indicates, as far as possible, how we may form an idea of the pain of fire which the demons suffer. Theologians have elaborated various theories on this subject, which, however, we do not wish to detail here (cf. the very minute study by Franz Schmid, “Quaestiones selectae ex theol. dogm.”, Paderborn, 1891, q. iii; also Guthberlet, “Die poena sensus” in “Katholik”, II, 1901, 305 sqq., 385 sqq.).
It is quite superfluous to add that the nature of hell-fire is different from that of our ordinary fire; for instance, it continues to burn without the need of a continually renewed supply of fuel. How are we to form a conception of that fire in detail remains quite undetermined; we merely know that it is corporeal. The demons suffer the torment of fire, even when, by Divine permission, they leave the confines of hell and roam about on earth. In what manner this happens is uncertain. We may assume that they remain fettered inseparably to a portion of that fire.
The pain of sense is the natural consequence of that inordinate turning to creatures which is involved in every mortal sin. It is meet that whoever seeks forbidden pleasure should find pain in return. (Cf. Heuse, “Das Feuer der Hölle” in “Katholik”, II, 1878, 225 sqq., 337 sqq., 486 sqq., 581 sqq.; “Etudes religieuses”, L, 1890, II, 309, report of an answer of the Poenitentiaria, 30 April, 1890; Knabenbauer, “In Matth., xxv, 41”.)
VII. ACCIDENTAL PAINS OF THE DAMNED
According to theologians the pain of loss and the pain of sense constitute the very essence of hell, the former being by far the most dreadful part of eternal punishment. But the damned also suffer various “accidental” punishments.
Just as the blessed in heaven are free from all pain, so, on the other hand, the damned never experience even the least real pleasure. In hell separation from the blissful influence of Divine love has reached its consummation.
The reprobate must live in the midst of the damned; and their outbursts of hatred or of reproach as they gloat over his sufferings, and their hideous presence, are an ever fresh source of torment.
The reunion of soul and body after the Resurrection will be a special punishment for the reprobate, although there will be no essential change in the pain of sense which they are already suffering.
As to the punishments visited upon the damned for their venial sins, cf. Francisco Suárez, “De peccatis”, disp. vii, s. 4.
VIII. CHARACTERISTICS OF THE PAINS OF HELL
(1) The pains of hell differ in degree according to demerit. This holds true not only of the pain of sense, but also of the pain of loss. A more intense hatred of God, a more vivid consciousness of utter abandonment by Divine goodness, a more restless craving to satisfy the natural desire for beatitude with things external to God, a more acute sense of shame and confusion at the folly of having sought happiness in earthly enjoyment — all this implies as its correlation a more complete and more painful separation from God.
(2) The pains of hell are essentially immutable; there are no temporary intermissions or passing alleviations. A few Fathers and theologians, in particular the poet Prudentius, expressed the opinion that on stated days God grants the damned a certain respite, and that besides this the prayers of the faithful obtain for them other occasional intervals of rest. The Church has never condemned this opinion in express terms. But now theologians are justly unanimous in rejecting it. St. Thomas condemns it severely (In IV Sent., dist. xlv, Q. xxix, cl.1). [Cf. Merkle, “Die Sabbatruhe in der Hölle” in “Romische Quartalschrift” (1895), 489 sqq.; see also Prudentius.]
However, accidental changes in the pains of hell are not excluded. Thus it may be that the reprobate is sometimes more and sometimes less tormented by his surroundings. Especially after the last judgment there will be an accidental increase in punishment; for then the demons will never again be permitted to leave the confines of hell, but will be finally imprisoned for all eternity; and the reprobate souls of men will be tormented by union with their hideous bodies.
(3) Hell is a state of the greatest and most complete misfortune, as is evident from all that has been said. The damned have no joy whatever, and it were better for them if they had not been born (Matthew 26:24). Not long ago Mivart (The Nineteenth Century, Dec., 1892, Febr. and Apr., 1893) advocated the opinion that the pains of the damned would decrease with time and that in the end their lot would not be so extremely sad; that they would finally reach a certain kind of happiness and would prefer existence to annihilation; and although they would still continue to suffer a punishment symbolically described as a fire by the Bible, yet they would hate God no longer, and the most unfortunate among them be happier than many a pauper in this life. It is quite obvious that all this is opposed to Scripture and the teaching of the Church. The articles cited were condemned by the Congregation of the Index and the Holy Office on 14 and 19 July, 1893 (cf. “Civiltà Cattolia”, I, 1893, 672).
There is the sense of loss and there is also the physical pain. There is the metaphorical as well as the literal. Both.
We must not get get caught up in the either/or when both are indicated.
It would be a judgement call as to the differences between the two. There is one heck of a difference between Islam and Hindu; there is less difference between Sikh and Hindu.
Some Lutherans are more Catholic than some Catholics; I would say that the Wisconsin Synod Lutherans and the more liberal Methodists are almost to the point where they are separate religions.
Conservative Lutherans and Methodists, nope. Sects of the same religion. I don’t have the immediate knowledge of the liberal wings to state anything with any accuracy.
I know that this is a scab that I really shouldn’t pick.
“I could choose to stray and become a slacker for a while, but God would either bring me around, or He would take me home before my salvation was lost. And, yes, I would assume that my reward in Heaven would be lesser for the time I gave up praying.”
Please fill me in on this. How is the Heavenly reward less?
This is exactly what I remembered from conversations on the Erasmus thread, and was the source of my original comment to wmfights. I guess those conversations must have been with you. :)
Does that mean that when man rejects God and pushes Him away in whatever level of violence that he does, then God leaves?
Just because that is Scripturally supported, does that really mean that it is true? :)
But isn't the only absolute truth for you whatever the Church says? You're asking me for something I don't have. My absolute truth is the scriptures, so we disagree on what the term even means. :)
FK: "For example, it sounds very much like you are saying that the mere act of creation puts an obligation on God to offer salvation to all."
You keep repeating this. No one ever puts any obligation on God.
Good, then please accept that it is not part of our theology. :)
Then your theology makes God ordain and desire evil.
Did God ordain and desire the evil of the crucifixion, or was Christ overwhelmed by the power of men?
FK: "Why is it impossible for God to simply leave people to their own sinful natures?"
If God controls and is the cause of their sinful nature then leaving them to their own sinful nature is an oxymoron in the context of your question.
God is the first cause of everything and Adam was the last cause of our sinful nature. There is no oxymoron here. Therefore, our sinful natures ARE our own and we are responsible.
Yeah, right, FK. The verse says God hardened Pharaoh's heart. It doesn't say God let Pharaoh exercise his sinful nature...
Both are true at the same time. God withdrew grace (or stopped supplying it) thus He "hardened". Pharaoh was then free to exercise his free will to even worse results.
“Did God ordain and desire the evil of the crucifixion, or was Christ overwhelmed by the power of men?”
God did what it took to ensure that salvation was available to all men, not just those who won the lottery. God, the omipotent and omniscient, is not about to be overwhelmed by His creations. I can hardly be overwhelmed by entries on my Palm Pilot, neither will God be overwhelmed by us.
If everything we do is from God, whether sinful or no, then we are in no way responsible. If I program my Palm Pilot to do something, it is not responsible for what I program. I am. If I program it to send up a balloon text at 8:23 am each morning with accompanying music saying that MarkBsnr is the most wonderful human being in the world, what kind of idiot would I be if I got disgusted with it and threw it into the garbage simply because it did what I programmed it to do?
That works great for me since that is exactly what the Bible says. :)
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.