The Inquisition ...

[Thomas]

Hi Wil —

Some of us reformers love our mysticism...

I know, I know.

Subsequent to that yes ... but I think that when the reformers stripped out what they saw as 'pomp and circumstance', the baby often went with it!

'High Anglican' ceremony is akin to Catholic, it's what 'Low Anglicans' call 'bells and smells' ... and yet that's all part and parcel of evoking a state conducive to mystical communion. Zen is probably the 'ground zero' of this, but then even that has its aspects.

A. There ain't no certain way

I'd say there are a number of certain ways, and that's what the Traditions comprise. To say that any way is as good as any other way is erroneous, in my opinion. Some ways are more sound than others, some ways more suspect ... but I don't think we can say there ain't no certain way — it's a given that the Ways have achieved their results.

B. And the hell with those that say my way or the highway

Yes, that is a rather militant way of putting it.

C the truth and way has always been argued and disagreed with

Yes, that's human nature for you.

D man has had his hand in telling man what G!d has said and man has written and edited and translated

Yes he has, but the sacra doctrina of the world are still inspired, still suffused with the Way, and that's no reason to dismiss them. There's still viable texts.

E it releases us all...to believe and understand as we will, to commune wit the eachness of the allness in our own way.

Er ... sadly I don't think we can say that? I agree the sentiment, but there are some scoundrels out there peddling all manner of nonsense ...

F I luv it, and you for sharing

And you, too.

G I appreciate even more the sometimes heated arguments it took you all to get to this point

This has to be one of the worst methods of communication. I'm sure if junatoo3 and I met face to face, we'd have a rip-roaring time, smiles and laughter, etc. It's just the written word, stand alone, can seem so stark and aggressive.

I used to work with an account exec on big design projects. She was fantastic, but here emails, OMG She was French, thought in French and translated to English on the page ... nothing wrong with her grammar and syntax, but the message sometimes came across as a slap in the face! She wasn't that way at all, unless she was talking about English cuisine ...

H it proves the value if ebb and flow of a thread

Indeed.

I it proves that we can disagree and break eggs to make an omelette.

LOL

J yeah, I know, my understanding of what happens doesn't bode well with all

We all have our idiosyncrasies ...

K 123, glad you are back, this discourse reminds me of the old days here, and I so wish we could ressurect a few others, additionally appreciate that you stood in in the middle of this and continued.

What's that line from The Godfather/Sopranos ?

L you all have my utmost respect, Thomas, RJM, 123... back to your regularly scheduled programming.

This break was brought to you by ...

As an aside, maybe I'm channelling the spirit of the Fathers (I wish!). I've been told that up to and until quite recent times, opposing philosophers would trash their opponent's argument, then his character, his good name, his reputation ... everything!

Tertullian, for example (not my favourite theologian) was notorious, apparently. He had been trained in Roman juris prudence, and when he went to town on someone, he was like a TV lawyer of the most disreputable sort, grand-standing and demolishing his opponent until nothing remained but a puddle on the floor.

St Maximus the Confessor, now there was a gentle soul who 'corrected' his opponent and left them feeling like Santa had just been to visit.

 

[Thomas]

Here's a heresy for you ... apokatastasis ... the 'restitution of all thing' or 'universal salvation of all', including Old Nick himself! I quote from wiki:

Clement of Alexandria (150 – 215AD) generally uses the term apokatastasis to refer to the "restoration" of the "gnostic" Christians, rather than that of the universe or of all Christians, but with universal implications.

The position of Origen (186–284AD) is disputed, with works as recent as the New Westminster Dictionary of Church History presenting him as speculating that the apocatastasis would involve universal salvation.

In early Christian theological usage apocatastasis meant the ultimate restoration of all things to their original state, which early exponents believed would still entail a purgatorial state, Both Origen and Gregory of Nyssa hoped that all creatures would be saved. The word was still very flexible at that time, but in the mid-6th century it became virtually a technical term referring, as usually today, to a specifically Origenistic doctrine of universal salvation. Maximus the Confessor outlined God's plan for "universal" salvation alongside warnings of everlasting punishment for the wicked.

Luther
The Vulgate translation of apokatastasis, "in tempora restitutionis omnium quae locutus est Deus" (the restitution of all things of which God has spoken) was taken up by Luther to mean the day of the restitution of the creation, but in Luther's theology the day of restitution was also the day of resurrection and judgment, not the restitution of the wicked. In Luther's Bible he rendered the Greek apokatastasis with the German herwiedergebracht werde; "will be brought back." This sense continued to be used in Lutheran sermons.

Luther explicitly disowned belief that the devils would ultimately reach blessedness.

19th-century Universalism
During the 19th and early 20th centuries several histories published by Universalists, including Hosea Ballou (1829), Thomas Whittemore (1830), John Wesley Hanson (1899) and George T. Knight (1911), argued that belief in universal reconciliation was found in early Christianity and in the Reformation, and ascribed Universalist beliefs to Origen, Clement of Alexandria, and others.

+++

I highlighted Maximus because there is a note in his writings (according to Cosmic Liturgy: The Universe According to Maximus the Confessor by Hans Urs von Balthasar) that says the apokatastasis is a doctrine not to be spoken ...

... by which one might discern that — being generally in favour of Gregory and Origen (whom he 'gently corrected') — he did believe in the universal salvation of all, but it's best kept schtumm because it gives man a free reign to make whoopee in the belief that whatever he did, no matter how naughty he got, skirts up, trousers down and all that, he would be forgiven! You can imagine where that might lead ...

(Curiously, Nick the Pilot — you'll recall our 'debates' — was absolutely, dogmatically, unequivocally against this idea, he insisted that every sin had to counted and suffered for. He was merciless in that regard. It was one of his most-often repeated charges against the Catholic Church, that it was a kind of 'get out of jail free' offer. An absolute and all-encompassing indulgence, for free! Can't see the Church offering that, and I'm pretty bloody certain J23 would have a comment ... I mean, just bend the knee and a sign of the cross and Absolute Absolution, For free! No strings! Are you mad?! (Sorry, J23, but I think we're shoulder to shoulder on that one!)

'Nuff said ...

 

[Thomas]

I have my moments

You've given me a few, too!

Yes...but is it necessary for salvation? Now, I need to qualify because even as I wrote the earlier post I was reminded of the Magdalene anointing Jesus with the precious oil, and Judas scolding her that the money could have been used for the poor, and Jesus (I imagine gently reminding) that "the poor you have with you always," a polite rebuke of Judas' position.

No, it's not necessary.

But we are talking of levels of degree. Surely you understand that a cathedral...pick one, any one, scattered across Europe...costs many multiple king's ransoms to build. Most took centuries...plural...to construct. That isn't pocket change.

Yes, and we're back in that grey middle ground again, aren't we? The poor made their contribution, and no doubt were told the way to heaven would be shorter, etc., etc ... one the one hand a gift to realise a dream, on the other religious extortion...

I and another wanted to start a bit of a theology thing at our Church, a Dominican Priory. The parish priest took us aside:
"I've nothing against the idea in principle, but this place was paid for and built by the offerings and the labour of the poor of the parish — mostly Irish immigrants — and I'll not see it taken over by the Hampstead elite."

I've put money in the box to repair a chapel, or a roof, or this or that, never felt my arm twisted ... but that's not to say arms weren't, or aren't.

On the one hand, I could see that as an expression of faith...OK. On the other hand, taking into consideration the period of time in which they were built, it wasn't optional. Dissent was not allowed. You either go along with the program, or you are on the outs (interpret that as you wish).

A negotiable point, not always and in every instance, but largely, I gotta go with you ... look at the Crusades, for •••• sake! How many of the poor etc., were told that if they went on a Crusade, then St Peter would be waiting with open arms, and most no doubt robbed and slaughtered by their own on the road, a long way from the Holy Land ... And we're not even onto kings and princes who were looking at making a mint out of the affair ... "Sod Jerusalem, let's just rape Venice instead!"

Yeah ... you've got a point.

So I do understand what you are getting at...but it is a far, far higher level of degree; number one being essentially coerced into it, and number 2 quite a different matter than sweeping the floor, vacuuming the rug and making sure the toilet bowl is clean.

OK! Uncle! Uncle!

 

[juantoo3]

Never intended to go there, I think. That's my thing about the Church adopting the materiality of Rome, rather than just the useful ideas like straight roads and central heating.

Rather the crux of the matter, don't you think? Adopting a good bit more from the Pagan Romans than really necessary?

I designed a book jacket:

View attachment 1850

That image is Antelope Canyon in Arizona. says it all for me: Cathedral, the Sacred, Enlightenment ...

Beautiful work!

I ain't arguing with Him, he's a tougher nut that even you! And, like you, He knows His onions.

There's a compliment in there somewhere, I think, though I'm not so sure I'm worthy of it. Thank you just the same...

No, and true, but then God did give instructions in the Hebrew Scriptures, and there's a whole raft of understanding about the value of creating sacred spaces, it's a universal and was there before institutional religions ...

OK...but you realize that argument amounts to "everybody else is doing it, so we should too!," right? So that puts Christian Cathedrals on par with the Pyramids of Egypt, Machu Picchu, Stonehenge, the Acropolis, the Temple of Artemis and even the Aztec Pyramids. Don't get me wrong, I appreciate as an amateur historian and anthropologist that humanity has long had some deep driven need to build monuments...but my question to you remains, do we lump the Christian edifices in with the rest?, because that is where your argument leads. My point stands; Jesus did not request, suggest or command any structure in his honor or memory or any other. Indeed, for a long time, Christians met in each others' homes. If anything, Jesus foretold the Temple would be torn down, that not one stone would remain atop another.

I find it reasonable and natural for someone to desire to make something for God, Heaven knows, I tidied my flat the first time I invited a young lady round!

I think there might be something in noting the distinction between the desire of wanting 'the best that I can do for you', and wanting 'the best that there is in the eyes of men' ... the latter sounds suspect to me, in a Parable of the Rich Man and the Publican kinda way?

Yes...it is a matter of degree.

 

[RJM]

... I don't know, you tell me why how many millions of believers were coerced (cajoled, duped, convinced) into building bigger and bigger cathedrals all across Europe...primarily though not exclusively in the predominantly Catholic parts of Europe? ...

But there seems to be this assumption that uninformed, uneducated, superstitious people were (and still are) conned or coerced? Into building temples. Attending them. Whatever? The assumption that the Church imposed itself for the sole benefit of a dishonest, bloated clergy, rather than that perhaps people with ordinary lives found/find refuge and comfort there? In God?

EDIT: That 'God' can't be real, doesn't matter, is pretty much a big scam and people who go there are really quite dumb, actually ...

(Post has been edited ...)

 

[juantoo3]

As an aside, maybe I'm channelling the spirit of the Fathers (I wish!). I've been told that up to and until quite recent times, opposing philosophers would trash their opponent's argument, then his character, his good name, his reputation ... everything!

Tertullian, for example (not my favourite theologian) was notorious, apparently. He had been trained in Roman juris prudence, and when he went to town on someone, he was like a TV lawyer of the most disreputable sort, grand-standing and demolishing his opponent until nothing remained but a puddle on the floor.

St Maximus the Confessor, now there was a gentle soul who 'corrected' his opponent and left them feeling like Santa had just been to visit.

I know this is addressed to Wil, but it goes far in explaining much...

My training has been somewhat different. What I see you describe here is Rhetoric. Rhetoric is a powerful tool...but it has no requirement to be truthful or factual...and because of this is not suitable for scholarly discussions. Logic has a list of fallacious reasoning...in rhetoric all is fair, if it sounds good and dismisses your opponent - go for it! Nothing is out of bounds...slander, deceit, bait-and-switch, strawman, slippery slope, tugs at heartstrings and anything else that works, it's all part and parcel of the program. That is why politicians use rhetoric, not logic...because it works at convincing people - whether wooing a lover or getting out the vote.

As an historian, I mostly confine my views to logic, at least until the onslaught of rhetoric becomes too much. Might be the facts brought forth elicit emotional responses, and it is difficult to set aside cherished ideals long enough to consider unemotionally, but as a scientist/philosopher it has to be done.

 

[wil]

I'm sure if junatoo3 and I met face to face, we'd have a rip-roaring time, smiles and laughter, etc.

One time 12tree and I happened to walk toward the same chapel... At the reception that is exactly what occurred.

There was also a dream, a q and that lady down under...

 

[EdgyDolmen]

I made a decision months ago to shut up and just read this forum. I figured what better way to learn. Here a great example:

Thomas: "I designed a book jacket: View attachment 1850 That image is Antelope Canyon in Arizona. says it all for me: Cathedral, the Sacred, Enlightenment" …

Geez! Been there but now I feel guilty for not bowing...

Thanks for sharing Thomas. Rather moving to say the least. Now don't shame me by telling me this is some famous work that I missed by some famous artist on the jacket of a best selling writer

 

[wil]

Recognized as well...lots o beauty in that area....

 

[RJM]

Here's a heresy for you ... apokatastasis ... the 'restitution of all thing' or 'universal salvation of all
... Nuff said ...

'Restore Factory Settings'. A serious button to press ...

 

[juantoo3]

But there seems to be this assumption that uninformed, uneducated people were conned or coerced? Into building temples. Attending them. Whatever? The assumption that the Church imposed itself, for the sole (e)xplanation benefit of a dishonest, bloated clergy rather than that perhaps people with hard lives found refuge and comfort there? In God?

I don't think it is an either/or situation. I'm sure there were many well intended, well meaning "uneducated people" as you say, that did what they believed to be the right thing to do. This is going to come out more callous than it is meant, but we respond in the way we are taught, almost like little robots cycling a program. I couldn't possibly expect a peasant in rural France in 1555 to respond by reciting the Confucian Analects or by participating in the Native American Vow to the Sun. So, where does the responsibility lie? Does it lie on the authorities that demanded specific indoctrination and obeisance, or on the individual for attempting to reach out to and respect the Divine?

With the former, we get what I call the "war crimes excuse," I was just doing what I was told to do, all the way up the chain of command. With the latter, all of the responsibility falls on the shoulders of the individual...which in my mind is where it rightly belonged to begin with.

Were the uneducated spoon fed untruths? Absolutely, no question in my mind, I've already pointed to Dante. Did the uneducated have to go along with everything? Gauging by the widespread and longstanding residual agricultural and rural Paganism in the corners of the various countries that were more difficult to police, I would say the answer is "no."

I want to believe there were those of good intent...indeed, I think Luther himself was well intended. Perfect? No, but who is? I want to believe, like some local level politicians that there were those well meaning and of good intent, that performed the best they knew how with what they had to offer...which is all anyone can ask of anybody. These people don't make the headlines or the history books. And regrettably, those in power tend to herd them as sheep to be fleeced at will.

And then you have the "Robin Hood" types that stay *mostly* just out of reach of authority and do their own thing out in the woods, until they get daring enough to cross paths authority and end up unceremoniously dispatched.

So there is a broad range to span, and there isn't a one-size fits all answer. Do I presume that the uneducated laity that trusted those clergy in authority over them were (often) misled into giving up money and other resources they often couldn't afford to do? Yes, and I think that is a valid presumption based on what we know of the time and place. Was that the only thing that ever happened? I want to think the best, but considering the hundreds of years and how many generations per century back then, and the tendency for abuse of power and authority, I think any contradicting moments would have been localized and probably the exception, not the rule.

 

[RJM]

I don't think it is an either/or situation. I'm sure there were many well intended, well meaning "uneducated people" as you say, that did what they believed to be the right thing to do. This is going to come out more callous than it is meant, but we respond in the way we are taught, almost like little robots cycling a program. I couldn't possibly expect a peasant in rural France in 1555 to respond by reciting the Confucian Analects or by participating in the Native American Vow to the Sun. So, where does the responsibility lie? Does it lie on the authorities that demanded specific indoctrination and obeisance, or on the individual for attempting to reach out to and respect the Divine?

With the former, we get what I call the "war crimes excuse," I was just doing what I was told to do, all the way up the chain of command. With the latter, all of the responsibility falls on the shoulders of the individual...which in my mind is where it rightly belonged to begin with.

Were the uneducated spoon fed untruths? Absolutely, no question in my mind, I've already pointed to Dante. Did the uneducated have to go along with everything? Gauging by the widespread and longstanding residual agricultural and rural Paganism in the corners of the various countries that were more difficult to police, I would say the answer is "no."

I want to believe there were those of good intent...indeed, I think Luther himself was well intended. Perfect? No, but who is? I want to believe, like some local level politicians that there were those well meaning and of good intent, that performed the best they knew how with what they had to offer...which is all anyone can ask of anybody. These people don't make the headlines or the history books. And regrettably, those in power tend to herd them as sheep to be fleeced at will.

And then you have the "Robin Hood" types that stay *mostly* just out of reach of authority and do their own thing out in the woods, until they get daring enough to cross paths authority and end up unceremoniously dispatched.

So there is a broad range to span, and there isn't a one-size fits all answer. Do I presume that the uneducated laity that trusted those clergy in authority over them were (often) misled into giving up money and other resources they often couldn't afford to do? Yes, and I think that is a valid presumption based on what we know of the time and place. Was that the only thing that ever happened? I want to think the best, but considering the hundreds of years and how many generations per century back then, and the tendency for abuse of power and authority, I think any contradicting moments would have been localized and probably the exception, not the rule.

So that's fine then: people were dumb, the Church instructed them, they just did it. Problem solved. Not my cousin, sister, auntie. Not dumb, bro: not then, not now ...

 

[juantoo3]

Nobody (poor, uneducated) knew to question until they could read the Bible for themselves. I know Thomas pointed to the Tyndale Bible, but it was really the King James that set the tone for English readers. I think it was the Douay for Catholics, rushed to print to compete with the King James. And while I don't know specifics, I'm sure there are comparable stories in other European languages.

If you can't read, and only Latin is preached at you on Sundays (and you speak another non-Romance language as your native tongue), and the Latin may or may not be interpreted or explained to you, and I would guess questions were discouraged (certainly any philosophical challenges to dogma would be), you are really left with no recourse but to believe what you are told. Thinking is not allowed.

Today, generally (at least that's what they tell me public school is for), people are taught to read and to think for themselves. I'll leave for another day how successful that is. But this is a modern invention, and frankly expanded in part as a result of separation of Church and State. In a Church school, you're gonna learn what they tell you and questioning dogma is not encouraged. In a State sponsored school, you still learn what they tell you, but at least a door is opened to alternate points of view that would never be allowed in a Church school. We can't project our modern understanding and experiences back onto historical practices...unless you had money and could afford private schools, and even there the Church dominated the lessons...you were stuck with what the Church wanted you to know.

 

[juantoo3]

EDIT: That 'God' can't be real, doesn't matter, is pretty much a big scam and people who go there are really quite dumb, actually ...

This wasn't in the original quote, and that is not at all what I meant.

 

[wil]

Not to mention computers and word and phrase searching...

 

[RJM]

Nobody (poor, uneducated) knew to question until they could read the Bible for themselves. I know Thomas pointed to the Tyndale Bible, but it was really the King James that set the tone for English readers. I think it was the Douay for Catholics, rushed to print to compete with the King James. And while I don't know specifics, I'm sure there are comparable stories in other European languages.

If you can't read, and only Latin is preached at you on Sundays (and you speak another non-Romance language as your native tongue), and the Latin may or may not be interpreted or explained to you, and I would guess questions were discouraged (certainly any philosophical challenges to dogma would be), you are really left with no recourse but to believe what you are told. Thinking is not allowed.

Today, generally (at least that's what they tell me public school is for), people are taught to read and to think for themselves. I'll leave for another day how successful that is. But this is a modern invention, and frankly expanded in part as a result of separation of Church and State. In a Church school, you're gonna learn what they tell you and questioning dogma is not encouraged. In a State sponsored school, you still learn what they tell you, but at least a door is opened to alternate points of view that would never be allowed in a Church school. We can't project our modern understanding and experiences back onto historical practices...unless you had money and could afford private schools, and even there the Church dominated the lessons...you were stuck with what the Church wanted you to know.

But how many read the whole Bible? How many have done? How many wanted to wade through all that stuff? There's an assumption that unscrupulous churchmen hoodwinked ignorant peasants, for whatever reason.

Whereas most monks and churchmen weren't perfect, probably the majority were mostly sincere and probably not deliberately duplicitous. Which extends to their transcription of Bibical documents. It was their sacred work.

This wasn't in the original quote, and that is not at all what I meant.

Sorry about editing my posts, I know its irritating. I try to get the words right, for posterity. You gave to watch out for that, lol

 

[juantoo3]

But how many read the whole Bible? How many have done? How many wanted to wade through all that stuff? There's an assumption that unscrupulous churchmen hoodwinked ignorant peasants, for whatever reason.

Perhaps more should. I have...well, except all of Psalms and Song of Solomon.

The printing press opened new vistas for a lot of poorer people. Books handwritten on velum even back then were prohibitively expensive, where the new medium on this newfangled stuff called paper was cheap enough to read and light the fire on the stove or wipe your fanny, if you so chose. Point being it allowed more people to learn to read (which, point of history, people were by and large more literate during the early Christian era up into the Roman era, it was the Medieval era that "dumbed down" the population). I would be inclined to think as people grabbed onto this new medium for communication, ideas (good and bad) spread like wildfire. People suppressed for so long now had an opportunity, some more than others, to absorb more of the world around them. The printed word was a revolutionary change, not to be dismissed, no doubt every bit as influential over first world development as Luther. I truly suspect more people read the Bible, sincerely, cover to cover, back then. It is evident buried in his speeches that our President Abraham Lincoln was intimately familiar with the Bible, not just simple platitudes but extensive quotes and paraphrases and concepts, many which are surprising to readers today when they discover for themselves.

Folks back then didn't have the distractions of radio and TV and computers and internet. They didn't have movie houses. And if they lived far enough from the urban centers, they didn't really have to fuss all that much with politics (it's not like they could vote in a Feudal Lord system). What entertainment did they have? Church, perhaps a skit or play by the children, puppets, music, dance, various local holidays and festivals (some of which were Pagan in source), star gazing and not a whole lot else. Why not read the Bible?

Whereas most monks and churchmen weren't perfect, probably the majority were mostly sincere and probably not deliberately duplicitous. Which extends to their transcription of Bibical documents. It was their sacred work.

I'm hoping the misunderstanding is because I wasn't very clear. I'm certain there were well meaning people, particularly at the lower ranks. There may have even been a few that managed to climb a little. But the nature of the...animal...is that the truly good ones would not have had a chance to rise anywhere near the top. Their scruples and ethics wouldn't allow them the compromises to their integrity that would be required.

 

[RJM]

But the main body of (Catholic) churchmen were and still are just ordinary monks and nuns. Not fancy cardinals and bishops. And even most of those higher-ups were probably not deliberately bad or insincere people.

It's a pity people think of the Church that way. Rich born people gave money for building churches.

Still, we're not going to agree about the church deliberately misleading and forcing ignorant and superstitious people to come through its doors for the main purpose of fleecing money off them. Or whatever nefarious purpose.

 

[RJM]

I really did not intend a rude tone. It's just that as a Catholic one becomes used to being regarded as a superstitious person still living in the middle ages.

No-one judges today's London by medeival standards. Although the Catholic Church is firmly against several popular issues -- rightly or wrongly -- its stance is not grounded in the middle ages. I live near a Benedictine Abbey, by choice, and spend a quite a lot of time there.

I completely do understand that your judgements are studied, not knee-jerk.

The new atheists movement is sarcastic and superior to Catholics. I can't even read the shallow arguments and arrogant one-liners on Facebook. I've unsubscribed. The church is attacked constantly. It's all a bit tiresome.

Apologies if my comments reflect some of that weariness.

As I said, it's probably better for me to stay quiet and just read the discussion here. I lack the degree of study necessary. Unless dialogue is directed towards me, or my posts are directly quoted; then it would be a bit rude not to respond?

 

[juantoo3]

I am not at all familiar with these of whom you speak, but I did notice in my very brief fling with social media that people are far more brazen and brash hiding behind the anonymity, where they feel they are not accountable for what they say (or write). When I write, I do so with the understanding that I may be called on the carpet at some point. I don't intend to be hurtful simply for the purpose of inflicting pain...that is *never* my intent, and I don't use the word "never" lightly. I accept I can be mistaken, I accept that I may inadvertently cause pain or stress...for that I apologize if I have caused you any. I only write the truth as I understand it...and Thomas knows well my interpretation of "truth." It isn't found in any text directly.

I am certain being Catholic has its challenges, but being Christian of any stripe has challenges. I invite you to look into any of my old threads that may still be around. I cut my teeth here standing in the gap for those who were being baited by non-Christians for the sole purpose of ridicule, and I called Brian to task for it! No doubt that got me noticed right off. I've stood in the gap against atheists, I've stood in the gap against the "religion of evolution" and know it alls who in reality don't know a thing about what they are talking about. I've stood to many challenges to my faith, and without being cocky I've invited challenges to my faith...a sword must be honed to stay sharp.

I am a student and champion for logical discourse, but I am acutely aware that logical discourse does not always win against rhetoric. And I've learned long ago that I cannot defend certain elements of my faith with logic alone, that some elements of faith can only be accepted on faith. I can't prove G!d exists; yet in my experience, in my heart, always behind every thought...I know He does.