B
benedict_XVIII
Guest
One more thing.
It sounds like Prof. Linoli’s work is the best you can find on this issue.
It sounds like Prof. Linoli’s work is the best you can find on this issue.
- Status
B
benedict_XVIII
Guest
I like all miracles.
Maybe I’m a bit of a nasty boy but for as long as miracles happen, we can have a laugh at all the silly explanations atheist scientists give about them.
There is a very well known English evolutionist called Hawkins.
In the face of a certain miracle where a statue of the Lady moved an arm, Hawkins dared say that perhaps at that moment the atoms of the stATUE CHANGED POSITION AND THEREFORE THE ARM MOVED.
Can you be more ridiculous that that?
I like all miracles, but my favourite ones are three:
(1) the blood of St. January in Naples (San Gennaro)
Nearly every year at a certain date the faithful gather in Naples Cathedral and witness the blood of St. January become liquid again.
This blood is preserved inside a sealed glass bubble and is in no contact with the outside world.
Normally it is dry, but once a year it becomes liquid.
It is the Archbishop of Naples himself the one who shows the miracle to the faithful and all Italian newspapers report the news.
(2) The Holy Shroud:
You can discuss as long as you like whether it is a fake from the Middle Ages, but the fact remains that NOBODY has yet been able to tell what kind of pigment produced the image of the Lord.
It is not paint, not a photograph, not die, nothing known to us.
Of course, if you are dishonest, you will still pretend one day you’ll find out and there is a perfectly scientific explanation.
But so far, nobody has been able to come up with one.
I went to Turin myself once and could see the original shroud in 1982 I think it was.
(3) The image of Our Lady of Guadalupe.
Nobody can tell how on earth that piece of cloth could survive all these centuries intact.
There is meticulous research about this cloth, I read a book about it. It is a very interesting story.
Love and hugs to you all
Maybe I’m a bit of a nasty boy but for as long as miracles happen, we can have a laugh at all the silly explanations atheist scientists give about them.
There is a very well known English evolutionist called Hawkins.
In the face of a certain miracle where a statue of the Lady moved an arm, Hawkins dared say that perhaps at that moment the atoms of the stATUE CHANGED POSITION AND THEREFORE THE ARM MOVED.
Can you be more ridiculous that that?
I like all miracles, but my favourite ones are three:
(1) the blood of St. January in Naples (San Gennaro)
Nearly every year at a certain date the faithful gather in Naples Cathedral and witness the blood of St. January become liquid again.
This blood is preserved inside a sealed glass bubble and is in no contact with the outside world.
Normally it is dry, but once a year it becomes liquid.
It is the Archbishop of Naples himself the one who shows the miracle to the faithful and all Italian newspapers report the news.
(2) The Holy Shroud:
You can discuss as long as you like whether it is a fake from the Middle Ages, but the fact remains that NOBODY has yet been able to tell what kind of pigment produced the image of the Lord.
It is not paint, not a photograph, not die, nothing known to us.
Of course, if you are dishonest, you will still pretend one day you’ll find out and there is a perfectly scientific explanation.
But so far, nobody has been able to come up with one.
I went to Turin myself once and could see the original shroud in 1982 I think it was.
(3) The image of Our Lady of Guadalupe.
Nobody can tell how on earth that piece of cloth could survive all these centuries intact.
There is meticulous research about this cloth, I read a book about it. It is a very interesting story.
Love and hugs to you all
R
rcscwc
Guest
It happened for just one day. Neither earlier nor later.
And sceintists did try to come up with explanations, and could not.
E
Eucharisted
Guest
Ah, but that’s not a miracle. That’s a sign, and signs can come from the devil. Before the time of Christ, idols were known to speak to people - but it was actually the demons speaking in order to trick the people. The same will happen at the time of the Antichrist.
A
AveSantaMaria
Guest
Then how do we know the difference between a miracle from God and one from a demon.
B
benedict_XVIII
Guest
Look at it this way.
Maybe we shall never know if it was God or the Devil.
However, one thing seems unquestionable to me: the supernatural realm is at work in those signs or miracles.
They are telling us that the supernatural realm exists.
All we have to do is choose the right side of it.
Maybe we shall never know if it was God or the Devil.
However, one thing seems unquestionable to me: the supernatural realm is at work in those signs or miracles.
They are telling us that the supernatural realm exists.
All we have to do is choose the right side of it.
E
Eucharisted
Guest
Ave:
A miracle has four qualities:
Benedict:
You are leaning toward relativism in regards to supernatural occurances. Research miracles, because knowledge is power.
A miracle has four qualities:
- It is an act no man can do
- It’s fruit includes conversion and sanctity
- It dose not contradict Church teachings
- It must be witnessed by at least two people
Benedict:
You are leaning toward relativism in regards to supernatural occurances. Research miracles, because knowledge is power.
A
AveSantaMaria
Guest
How does it contradict with the oneness of God? Does this require deep knowledge of Hinduism to know whether or not it conflicts? Might this be arguably dependent on deep knowledge of Church teachings and be arbitrary - one person could see a supernational occurrence and say it does contradict with the Church teachings and one could say that it does not? So it might be up to the Pope to determine?
I think yes - given the various sources of the Marian apparitions and the fact that only the Vatican can truly determine their source. I am just learning now, for the first time, that the supernatural nature of an occurrence other than an apparition can be attributed both to God and demons.
E
Eucharisted
Guest
It’s elementry, really. Look to the First Commandment. Since only God is, and He forbids idols, the idol contradicts the Church teaching on the oneness of God. Hence, it is not a miracle.
A
AveSantaMaria
Guest
No, its not elementary. Protestant groups have often argued that veneration of Mary is idol worship and statues of the saints are idol-worship. Catholics have laid arguments for why these things are not idol-worship. Yet, Protestants can make the same claim that the Our Lady of Guadalupe miracle is demonic, and actually they do. I actually bought such claims for a while before I reconverted to Catholicism. In fact, the Catholic Church itself makes such claims about a demonic origin of unapproved signs claimed as done by certain images of Mary.
So, if a supernatural sign done by an image of an uncanonized but popularly accepted to be holy Catholic is done: How can we truly know the origins of this supernatural sign? That’s why I am suggesting that only the Pope can really know. A popularly accepted as holy Catholic could be leading a double-life for all we know so maybe it must be up to the Pope to verify what is a miracle and what is merely a supernatural sign.
E
Eucharisted
Guest
You honestly believe an idol is being used by God? Well, okay. I can’t change your mind, I can only show you the truth. I have, and you have rejected it. I’ll pray for you, though.No, its not elementary. Protestant groups have often argued that veneration of Mary is idol worship and statues of the saints are idol-worship. Catholics have laid arguments for why these things are not idol-worship. Yet, Protestants can make the same claim that the Our Lady of Guadalupe miracle is demonic, and actually they do. I actually bought such claims for a while before I reconverted to Catholicism. In fact, the Catholic Church itself makes such claims about a demonic origin of unapproved signs claimed as done by certain images of Mary.
So, if a supernatural sign done by an image of an uncanonized but popularly accepted to be holy Catholic is done: How can we truly know the origins of this supernatural sign? That’s why I am suggesting that only the Pope can really know. A popularly accepted as holy Catholic could be leading a double-life for all we know so maybe it must be up to the Pope to verify what is a miracle and what is merely a supernatural sign.
A
AveSantaMaria
Guest
No, I don’t believe an idol is being used by God, except to the extent that nothing ever happens without God allowing it to happen.
My point: is there any way to uneqivocably know if a supernatural sign is from God or the demons without a Papal decision? I may not believe that this idol comes from God, but I do not know how to logically and/or scientifically prove this or even if it is possible to do so and saying that it is an idol is hard for me to share with any non-believers (unless I am wrong on this) as many legitimate acts of veneration accepted by Catholics (such as Mary and the saints) are considered idols by others, i.e. Our Lady of Guadalupe’s tilma in Mexico. Since the Catholic Church sometimes considers veneration of these objects to be demonic veneration as well in the case of many unapproved supernatural signs and apparitions, it seems extremely difficult to know what is an idol and what is not without a clear Papal decision.
I think it is an extremely important issue to consider. Even if this documentation of the Lanciano miracle occurs and is widely known about, it may be possible for others to argue that it is of demonic origin and not of God’s origin. It may also be possible for demons to work similar miracles that can be verified scientifically. (I have no idea what limitations God has placed on their power
) So, at the end of the day, the Lanciano miracle seems to require acknowledgement that the supernatural does in fact exist, but it is still up to the Pope to determine when supernatural signs ought to be attributed to God rather than to demons!Maybe this belief is widely accepted by the Catholic Church and is the reason why His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI is producing a book to help us to discern the difference between miracles of demonic and Christian origin.
B
benedict_XVIII
Guest
I don’t know.
All this is too difficult for me.
I don’t like too much rational thinking. Always this hair-splitting tires me.
On the one hand, the milk drinking sign or miracle does not teach me anything . I do not look for spiritual teaching in it.
Second, we have statues of the saints in our churches and statues of the Virgin that bleed real blood.
Why shouldn’t Hindus have their statues too?
Gandhi was a Hindu and although Catholics may refuse to admit it (because of their intellectual arrogance and pride) Gandhi’s life could teach us Catholics a thing or two.
All this is too difficult for me.
I don’t like too much rational thinking. Always this hair-splitting tires me.
On the one hand, the milk drinking sign or miracle does not teach me anything . I do not look for spiritual teaching in it.
Second, we have statues of the saints in our churches and statues of the Virgin that bleed real blood.
Why shouldn’t Hindus have their statues too?
Gandhi was a Hindu and although Catholics may refuse to admit it (because of their intellectual arrogance and pride) Gandhi’s life could teach us Catholics a thing or two.
A
AveSantaMaria
Guest
Rational thinking is greatly appreciated and applauded by our faith. Without rational thinking, we may fall prey to illogical and wrong moral belief as well as superstition. The main problem that I can acknowledge that I suffer from rational thinking is a desire to disparage those who don’t agree or appreciate (seeming) logical correctness, which is probably related to my issues with pride and arrogance.
The Jews were supposed to recognize Christ by the prophesies and signs that he fulfilled. How would they have known that he fulfilled them if they hadn’t studied them? Christ, in fact, demonstrated his great appreciation of this philisophical pursuit during the Fifth Joyful Mystery: when he left his family and stayed for three days, discussing with those in the temple and even impressing and aweing them with his wisdom. In the New Testament, the Jews were commended for searching the Scriptures to discern if what Paul told them was in line with what they were biblically supposed to believe. These Jews were more fair-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with all willingness and examined the scriptures daily to determine whether these things were so. Acts 17:11 Solomon was commended for asking for the gift of wisdom, more greatly valued in the eyes of God than wives or power or money.
Many saints, i.e. St. Thomas Aquinas, are saints because of their devotion to intellectual and rational analysis of Catholic theology and not because of their great service, bodily mortification, or miracles. Doctors of the Church are those who correctly and significantly advance Catholic theology (in my imperfect and possibly flawed or sinful opinion). It may be one of the most fundamental differences between being a Catholic and a Protestant - submitting to God through Church authority or believing and doing your own thing guided by man’s discernment,
Sometimes a way seems right to a man, but the end of it leads to death!Proverbs 14:12, and much of our Cathechism of the Catholic Church may arise as a result of rational thinking.
Yet, you are right that rational thinking also has its flaws. See
"You search the scriptures, because you think you have eternal life through them; even they testify on my behalf."John 5:39 But it does seem to me that careful discernment is a probable way for figuring out the Truth. And knowledge of what is Truth and what is not Truth can also prevent one from having expectations and beliefs other than those intended by Christ, who is the way, truth, and life.
I apologize for any unintended harshness. I am a bit tired and frustrated so I may be less kind and fair in my posts than I intend and hope to be.
B
benedict_XVIII
Guest
I am going to say a couple of things and then you please correct me where I am wrong:
(1) According to Vatican II, all religions (including Hindu), if properly practiced, lead to God, although only the Catholic faith is the perfect one.
(2) St. Thomas was indeed a great saint and an excellent theologian. I don’t dispute that.
However, once I read that one day, after writing so many good things, he stopped writing altogether.
When someone asked him why he replied: I had a vision, and now that I have had that vision, all that I have written looks like straw to me.
Is this right?
(1) According to Vatican II, all religions (including Hindu), if properly practiced, lead to God, although only the Catholic faith is the perfect one.
(2) St. Thomas was indeed a great saint and an excellent theologian. I don’t dispute that.
However, once I read that one day, after writing so many good things, he stopped writing altogether.
When someone asked him why he replied: I had a vision, and now that I have had that vision, all that I have written looks like straw to me.
Is this right?
E
edwest2
Guest
Here’s the story of the image of Our Lady of Guadalupe:
freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2147622/posts
The point to remember is that God has sent His Mother to interact with people directly. Those who disbelieve need to ask God to help them understand this.
Peace,
Ed
freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2147622/posts
The point to remember is that God has sent His Mother to interact with people directly. Those who disbelieve need to ask God to help them understand this.
Peace,
Ed
A
AveSantaMaria
Guest
I did not know this and it is a enormous change in what I had previously believed. Even Hinduism with its caste system can be perfectly practiced and lead to God? It was for this reason that Mahatama Gandhi could not fully accept Hinduism, the caste system. I would be most grateful and appreciative to learn more about this Vatican II teaching and examine it for myself.
It seems though that some religious denominations: the United Church of Christ, for example that approve and even celebrate of gay marriage might lead one away from God. I have no idea about this either and would like to read more about it if so! Yet, whether or not he thinks that all he has written looks like straw, I strongly suspect (have not verified for myself) that much of our Cathechism of the Catholic Church and the theological influence on our religious leaders (His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI actually has a Ph.D. where he did his dissertation on St. Augustine - dissertations require extremely rational thought) is based on his teachings. In fact, His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI was a university professor for many years. I truly suspect that it is the gift from God of continued, sustained, pure, logical, and rational analysis of Catholic doctrine for decades that allows him now to make such well-informed and clear theological decisions. If you read such as the Theology of the Body from His Holiness Pope John Paul II, you see him interweaving even non-Catholic philosophers.
So, if Thomastic proofs are like straw, then maybe their place in the Theology of the Body that is influencing Catholics all over the world could be arguably unwarranted? Or perhaps he mal-aligns the great blessing to the world of his thoughtful works?
I am highly intrigued by your opinion, but I think that I come from almost the opposite background. You express a belief that I had not previously known before was official Vatican doctrine that all religions lead to God. I tend to come from the perspective that God is truth, thus a careful, exact, rational, and logical examination of the truth will lead to God. In fact, I once heard that the Catholic Church shephereded the university system through the Dark Ages. Hence, my extreme interest in the Lanciano miracle.
Many doubts exist as to the high standards to which the Catholic Church and Christian Churches in general approves miracles or saints, etc so when there is an option for unbelief, I (perhaps wrongly and sinfully) often exercise this option, knowing that certain Catholic beliefs that were accepted as noninfalliable have been proved wrong in the past. But few doubts (in my own mind) exist as to the veracity and truth of honestly conducted science whose logic and underpinnings are examinable and logically acceptable or refutable. So, for me, and for others (I have forwarded people verifiable proofs that got them to look at the faith when all amounts of talking might have done nothing) a scientifically examined miracle and logically consistent faith are amazing, holy, and powerful blessings, a reason why I went to such great lengths to contact the author of the article without personal reward!
I again apologize for any unnecessary harshness and lack of kindness in my messages. I am learning greatly from this discussion!
B
benedict_XVIII
Guest
Because you sound such a decent guy, I shall reply to your questions.I did not know this and it is a enormous change in what I had previously believed. Even Hinduism with its caste system can be perfectly practiced and lead to God? It was for this reason that Mahatama Gandhi could not fully accept Hinduism, the caste system. I would be most grateful and appreciative to learn more about this Vatican II teaching and examine it for myself.
I have no idea about this either and would like to read more about it if so! Yet, whether or not he thinks that all he has written looks like straw, I strongly suspect (have not verified for myself) that much of our Cathechism of the Catholic Church and the theological influence on our religious leaders (His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI actually has a Ph.D. where he did his dissertation on St. Augustine - dissertations require extremely rational thought) is based on his teachings. In fact, His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI was a university professor for many years. I truly suspect that it is the gift from God of continued, sustained, pure, logical, and rational analysis of Catholic doctrine for decades that allows him now to make such well-informed and clear theological decisions. If you read such as the Theology of the Body from His Holiness Pope John Paul II, you see him interweaving even non-Catholic philosophers.
So, if Thomastic proofs are like straw, then maybe their place in the Theology of the Body that is influencing Catholics all over the world could be arguably unwarranted? Or perhaps he mal-aligns the great blessing to the world of his thoughtful works?
I am highly intrigued by your opinion, but I think that I come from almost the opposite background. You express a belief that I had not previously known before was official Vatican doctrine that all religions lead to God. I tend to come from the perspective that God is truth, thus a careful, exact, rational, and logical examination of the truth will lead to God. In fact, I once heard that the Catholic Church shephereded the university system through the Dark Ages. Hence, my extreme interest in the Lanciano miracle.
Many doubts exist as to the high standards to which the Catholic Church and Christian Churches in general approves miracles or saints, etc so when there is an option for unbelief, I (perhaps wrongly and sinfully) often exercise this option, knowing that certain Catholic beliefs that were accepted as noninfalliable have been proved wrong in the past. But few doubts (in my own mind) exist as to the veracity and truth of honestly conducted science whose logic and underpinnings are examinable and logically acceptable or refutable. So, for me, and for others (I have forwarded people verifiable proofs that got them to look at the faith when all amounts of talking might have done nothing) a scientifically examined miracle and logically consistent faith are amazing, holy, and powerful blessings, a reason why I went to such great lengths to contact the author of the article without personal reward!
I again apologize for any unnecessary harshness and lack of kindness in my messages. I am learning greatly from this discussion!
But don’t expect an extremely thorough and fully detailed account.
You see, whenever I have some problem, I first look into the Bible and then into the Catechism next.
Jesus said that we have to believe like children.
I believe religion must be simple, so that even illiterate peasants can follow.
I do my best to keep it simple.
The reason why we have so many theologians is perhaps because we want to compete with the learnt people of this world.
We think we have to try and demonstrate our faith logically and rationally.
If all recent Popes did that, I suppose it is right, but it is not my charisma.
God demands that we BELIEVE.
If we can supply scientific proof, it is no longer a matter of belief.
It has been proven . There is no mystery anymore.
Do you get what I am trying to say ?
Anyway, I shall do a little research and come back to you, but tomorrow, dear Mr. Nice guy.
Love and hugs to you
A
AveSantaMaria
Guest
benedict XVIII:
In fact, many people join Catholicism because of the great learning within Catholicism in contrast to other religions that appear more superstititious or human dominated. Some Protestant converts to Catholicism cite this aspect of Catholicism as instrumental to their converstion - the extreme logical consistency of belief and the focus on absolute truth and not hearsay or mere human opinion/seculation. Not all people are seeking human love or are impressed by service to the extent that kindness from other Christians will draw them to Church, especially given the hypocrisy of many who call themselves Christian or Catholic.
Christianity also asks us sometimes to believe things that appear contrary to science or human opinion that we should believe: moral law is above scientific law so it is a great blessing that some Christians examine Christianity with the same rigour that scientists examine science in order to demonstrate to others that even scientific reason exists for holding Christianity superior to science.
** John 14:11 **“Believe me when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in me; or at least believe on the evidence of the miracles themselves.”
** John 10:37,38 ****“Do not believe in me unless I do what my Father does. But if I do it, even though you do not believe me, believe the miracles, ** that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father.”
** John 20:30,31 **“Jesus did many other miraculous signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. **But these are written that you may believe **that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.”
** Matt 11:21,22 ** “Woe to you, Korazin! Woe to you, Bethasaida! If the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. But I tell you, it will be more bearable for Tyre and Sidon on the day of judgment than for you.”
Neither the Bible nor the (non-infalliable) Cathechism of the Catholic Church would have existed and/or been accepted by our faith without rational human thought. In the footnotes of the Cathechism are references to the human originators of certain ideas.
St. Augustine of Hippo was an extremely learned man able to compete with the most learned philosophers. **Confessions of St. Augustine ** newadvent.org/fathers/1101.htm elaborates on this conclusively as well as the general approval that extremely learned scholars of this day and age give to him. St. Paul (whose contributions to the Church are considered by some to be second to Christ) was a Pharisee before he converted. So you have Christ - in full possession of the truth, St. Paul - deeply knowledgeable, St. Augustine - so revered for his intellectual understanding that he was chosen as a Christian pretty much against his will, the Church has been founded on the gifts of many as the Scripture tells us - preaching, loving, serving, helping, thinking as well.
Thank you for your compliments. I apologize for unintentional rudeness and I want to let you know that I greatly appreciate your opinion. In understanding your point of view, I am made into a better person.
As iron sharpens iron, so man sharpens his fellow man.Proverbs 27:17
A religion should not discriminate against the learned. If Christ was learned, St. Augustine of Hippo was learned, St. Paul was learned, our Popes are learned, Solomon was learned and God was pleased with all of this, how can we believe that being unlearned is necessary for Christianity or genuine belief. It is not learning that is a problem. Learning was created by God as a great and wonderful gift. Science was created by God. It is not in opposition to God - it is another path of finding God. It is the arrogance and pride and closed-mindedness and hypocrisy and attachment to the world that frequently follows learning that is wrong, not learning in and of itself, which is greatly and highly commended by God as the above Scriptures show.
In fact, many people join Catholicism because of the great learning within Catholicism in contrast to other religions that appear more superstititious or human dominated. Some Protestant converts to Catholicism cite this aspect of Catholicism as instrumental to their converstion - the extreme logical consistency of belief and the focus on absolute truth and not hearsay or mere human opinion/seculation. Not all people are seeking human love or are impressed by service to the extent that kindness from other Christians will draw them to Church, especially given the hypocrisy of many who call themselves Christian or Catholic.
Christianity also asks us sometimes to believe things that appear contrary to science or human opinion that we should believe: moral law is above scientific law so it is a great blessing that some Christians examine Christianity with the same rigour that scientists examine science in order to demonstrate to others that even scientific reason exists for holding Christianity superior to science.
That’s a-ok and blessed as well. It was not St. Francis of Assisi’s charism either and he is considered one of the greatest saints to exist on Earth, if not the greatest after Mary by much of the Church. But it is not right to denigrate others who use the gifts that God blessed them, and the Church community through them. We have many many gifts in the body of Christ distributed to many and learning is merely just one of the many.
No, I don’t get what you are trying to say. God almost always gave people proofs as far as I can tell from the earliest of times. He gave them the prophecies of the prophets, which are proofs if they came true. He also worked miracles, which are proofs. Even the Fatima apparitions give proofs. God said believe in me on account of several witnesses.
** John 14:11 **“Believe me when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in me; or at least believe on the evidence of the miracles themselves.”
** John 10:37,38 ****“Do not believe in me unless I do what my Father does. But if I do it, even though you do not believe me, believe the miracles, ** that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father.”
** John 20:30,31 **“Jesus did many other miraculous signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. **But these are written that you may believe **that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.”
** Matt 11:21,22 ** “Woe to you, Korazin! Woe to you, Bethasaida! If the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. But I tell you, it will be more bearable for Tyre and Sidon on the day of judgment than for you.”
Neither the Bible nor the (non-infalliable) Cathechism of the Catholic Church would have existed and/or been accepted by our faith without rational human thought. In the footnotes of the Cathechism are references to the human originators of certain ideas.
St. Augustine of Hippo was an extremely learned man able to compete with the most learned philosophers. **Confessions of St. Augustine ** newadvent.org/fathers/1101.htm elaborates on this conclusively as well as the general approval that extremely learned scholars of this day and age give to him. St. Paul (whose contributions to the Church are considered by some to be second to Christ) was a Pharisee before he converted. So you have Christ - in full possession of the truth, St. Paul - deeply knowledgeable, St. Augustine - so revered for his intellectual understanding that he was chosen as a Christian pretty much against his will, the Church has been founded on the gifts of many as the Scripture tells us - preaching, loving, serving, helping, thinking as well.
Thank you for your compliments. I apologize for unintentional rudeness and I want to let you know that I greatly appreciate your opinion. In understanding your point of view, I am made into a better person.
As iron sharpens iron, so man sharpens his fellow man.Proverbs 27:17
- Status