Not everyone can be a muslim you know.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/18/AR2006091801149.html
Kerry did not describe the revelation in the speech. But in a telephone interview afterward, he said it occurred in 1987 or 1988 after a friend, whom he declined to name, died of cancer.
"I have a very vivid image of the loss of that friend and of his words about why he had to die, how it was part of God's purpose. And out of that came a sense of acceptance," he said.
It was "a stark awakening about how you reconcile some of these difficulties I had about . . . the suffering, about the problem of evil," Kerry added. "I understood that to be part of the test of faith."
The Pope-mobile versus the poop-blog:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/21/AR2006092101232.html
To Die or Not to Die, now that is the question!
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/21/AR2006092100643.html
"In carrying out the death sentence, Indonesia ignored an appeal last month by Pope Benedict XVI to spare the men. A Vatican spokesman, the Rev. Federico Lombardi, told the Italian news agency ANSA that news of the execution "was very sad and painful."
"Fabianus Tibo, 60, Marinus Riwu, 48, and Dominggus da Silva, 42, were found guilty of leading a Christian militia that launched a series of attacks in May 2000 _ including a machete and gun assault on an Islamic school where dozens of men were seeking shelter."
News of the Madonna:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/21/AR2006092101213.html
"She's asking the audience to do what they can to help children dying in Africa, she said.
"Please do not pass judgment without seeing my show," she said."
Of course not Madonna. But didn't you convert to Orthodox Judaism? I think it best to ask the pope what he thinks. He is an I=N=T=E=L=L=E=C=T=U=A=L. Make sure to tell him that one of the things you do to protect your children is censoring television. We wouldn't want the children of the Madonna gettin' no false ideas now, would we?
1 comment:
Excerpt from al-Farabi, The Book of Religion (4-6)
The first type of opinions specified in religion is twofold: an opinion designated by its proper name, which customarily signifies it itself; or an opinion designated by the name of what is similar to it. Thus the determined opinions in the virtuous religion are either the truth or a likeness of the truth. In general, truth is what a human being ascertains, either by himself by means of primary knowledge, or by demonstration. Now any religion in which the first type of opinions does not comprise what a human being can ascertain either in itself (bi-nafsihi) or by demonstration and in which there is no likeness of anything he can ascertain in one of these two ways is an errant religion.
Thus, virtuous religion is similar to philosophy. Just as philosophy is partly theoretical and partly practical, so it is with religion: the calculative theoretical part is what a human being is not able to do when he knows it, whereas the practical part is what a human being is able to do when he knows it. The practical things in religion are those whose universals are in practical philosophy. That is because the practical things in religion are those universals made determinate by stipulations restricting them, and what is restricted is more particular than what is unqualified, e.g. saying "the human being who is writing" is more particular than saying "the human being." Therefore all virtuous laws are subordinate to the univerals of practical philosophy. The theoretical opinions that are in religion have their demonstrative proofs in theoretical philosophy and are taken in religion without demonstrative proofs.
Therefore, the two parts of which religion consists are subordinate to philosophy. For something is said to be a part of a science or to be subordinate to a science in one of two ways: either the demonstrative proofs of what is assumed in it without demonstrative proofs occur in that science, or the science comprising the universals is the one that gives the reasons for the particulars subordinate to it. The practical part of philosophy is, then, the one that gives the reasons for the stipulations by which actions are made determinate… Further, if to know something is to know it demonstratively, then this part of philosophy is the one that gives the demonstrative proof for the determined actions that are in virtuous religion…
Dialectic yields strong presumption about all or most of what demonstrative proofs yield certainty about, and rhetoric persuades about most of what is not such as to be proven by demonstration or looked into by dialectic. Moreover, virtuous religion is not only for philosophers or only for someone of such a station as to understand what is spoken about only in a philosophical manner. Rather most people who are taught the opinions of religion and instructed in them and brought to accepts its actions are not of such a station, and that is either due to nature or because they are occupied with other things. Yet they are not people who fail to understand generally accepted or persuasive things. For that reason, both dialectic and rhetoric and of major value for verifying the opinions of religion for the citizens and for defending, supporting and establishing those opinions in their souls, as well as for defending those opinions when someone appears who desires to deceive the followers of the religion by means of argument, lead them into error, and contend against the religion. [Butterworth translation]
Post a Comment