Hey, wait . . .

Wait for?

Have to get down to feed the horses their breakfasts in a few minutes.
One has had a serious injury and may need to be euthanized -until then needs special attention.

 

  I was joking. The farrier’s last quip threw me for a loop!  It’s hilarious in its ridiculousness and ridiculous in its hilarity. LOL. 

P.S. I hope the injured horse pulls through!  I know that depending on the severity of the injury, that might not be possible, but I’m pulling for you and her/him!
~

Sammi, the horse, is okay for now - but won't be long term.
A branch of the trigeminal nerve is paralysed. He can't eat properly, drops half of what he chews, and can't drink at all. 
I'm soaking his feed so he's able to get up to 9 litres of water a day - which is the minimum safe amount during winter.
But come summer he would die of dehydration.
So I will have to euthanize him before the hot weather comes.
There's a horrible grief tearing at my chest.
I known him for eight years, from the second he was born.

I have three horses is I know it's tough to lose a horse.  I lost one of my horses a couple of years ago.  I hate losing any of my animals.

 

  That’s such a shame he’s going through all of that terrible suffering. The only consolation appears to be the loving care you’re giving him. I know it must be one of the worst things in the world to experience slow decline like that, I wish you both peace. 

~

lol, I wonder if he ever thought that maybe if horse's teeth were different, we would've made different shaped bits to fit them.  Hmm, did anyone ever ask him that?

He's handy with tools, ethical, kind and honest, but not very bright, so I'm certain that even though he could have designed and forged a different kind of bit himself, he would never have thought of it.

I didn't think it polite or kind to challenge his views.

I don't know if I would actually argue with him either, but then again I've never had a vet or a farrier that wanted to talk religion or politics while taking care of my animals.  That would be weird to me.  All of the people in my life who love to argue religion are my immediate family members, specifically my mom and her brother, Uncle Bob.  The difference is mom is strictly a religion arguer and Uncle Bob is both a politics and religion arguer.  Politics and religion are one in the same to my Uncle Bob, which is something that doesn't make any sense to me.

Anyway, it only makes sense to me that people make things to fit the animal.  I just have a hard time believing God made animals to fit the thing to fit the things we would put on them.

I once had a "barber"---before they became "stylists"---who was a Jehovah Witness.

I was a captive audience.

Thanks.
I'll have to take a look at Dr John Polkinghorne's thinking.

I am skeptical about his ever being an atheist. In any case one man;s experiences mean nothing when we see so many Christians become atheists, e.g. my former lover Garrett Belcher. 

Well how about C.S. Lewis (atheist to well known Christian apologist); Ignace Lepp (French psychiatrist whose parents were freethinkers and who joined the Communist party at age fifteen; broke with the party in 1937 and eventually became a Catholic priest); Salvador Dalí (---I assume you know who he is---to Catholicism).

Personally, I am a "cradle" Catholic (Catholic from infancy).  When I was in my late twenties and early thirties, I found Catholicism to be rather inconvenient to practice.  For a number of years, I tried to prove to myself that its teachings were wrong. After years of reading, in order to preserve my intellectual integrity I had to admit that it made perfect sense.



 

Excepting Papal infallibility, the sinlessness of the Blessed Virgin, venerating the saints, clerical celibacy and baptism without a personal confession of faith.
I was also a "cradle Catholic" until I married a Protestant and took her faith. I always left my options open regarding a return to Catholicism, possibly via the schismatic Old Catholic Church - but the last straw was when the College of Cardinals elected a Nazi to the Papacy. Jesus was a Jew.
One could argue that Benedict had no choice but to join the Hitler Youth (although one could make an equally valid argument that no German of his generation is fit to be Pope for that reason), but in his case the point is moot - joining the NSDAP was never compulsory, Josef Ratzinger joined the Party of his own volition and thus shares some culpability for the Holocaust. Anything a Nazi says is necessarily wrong regardless of what chair his a$$ happens to be warming.

It is not unusual for Catholics who have drifted away from their faith and then embraced another to object to those same issues.

I am reminded of a saying I once heard:  God created man in His own image and then man returned the favor.

The issues you mentioned make perfect sense to me after I studied the theology behind them and understood the function of Canon Law [which covers such things as the process of religious service, criteria for baptism, funerals, prohibited conduct, church property, and internal boards which have jurisdiction over Church matters (ecclesiastic courts)] in the governing of the church.

And doesn't your comment that "Anything a Nazi says is necessarily wrong regardless of what chair his a$$ happens to be warming" not entirely consistent with an acknowledgment of God's grace in action?

This post was edited by tom jackson at October 28, 2020 2:07 PM MDT

Jesus was a Jew. Ratzinger willingly wore the swastika. How can such a man possibly represent our Jewish Messiah?
The dogmas relating to Mary (contravening Rom 3:23) and praying to the saints for intercession (1 Tim 2:5) are counter to holy writ - the only evidence we have, tradition can't countermand it. Most of the early episcopes were married (Paul, as a member of the Sanhedrin, was necessarily a widower). Until the early Middle Ages, infants weren't baptised - and this only became common when the Church in the depth of its mediaeval corruption starting charging for it, preaching on original sin as a way of squeezing more money out of the serfs. Luther did the Church a favour by forcing it to clean up its act - selling of indulgences and relics, the pieces of the "True Cross" circulating in Europe at the time could have made up 3 deciduous forests. The Shroud of Turin has also been proven fake.
My own degree is in Theology, I took religion and philosophy as a double major.

How can such a man possibly represent our Jewish Messiah?---well, maybe he had a private episode of the Saul-->Paul paradigm.

Tradition can't countermand it---Protestants and Catholics differ in their beliefs about the importance of tradition.  We can't both be right, so I'll give the tie to us Catholics.  But regardless of the tradition question, I disagree with your interpretation of both of the quotes you sited.

Infant Baptism---The Resurrections---by which God and man were reconciled---eventually ushered in the gift of Faith being passed down as quickly as possible to Christian offspring.  (The Resurrection miracle works both backward AND forward in time.)

I hope---that as you said in your previous post---you are still keep9ing your options open.,

Tou evidently need to take college courses in Logic. It is appalling when people claim to be logical but display many illogical ideas. The rocks, etc. needed to come from somewhere, and gods needed to come from somewhere. If you claim gods always existed, it is more logical to say the Universe always existed. Occam's Razors slices gods to bits. 

How about showing us the syllogism by which you conclude that "it is more logical to say the Universe always existed."

ReiSan. 
Tou evidently need to, take... I think you need to attend a physical therapy program to develop your coordination to use your keypad. A college course in proper English would also help. No comma after to,. 
Who's talking about gods or bringing gods into a discussion? 




This post was edited by antibiotic at October 29, 2020 10:42 AM MDT

You say, "There is no convincing evidence that any gods exist."  Hmm.

For some people there apparently is more than enough of such evidence to be probative.

I am convinced that one particular God exists---and I know Him as the Abrahamic God. As an intelligent man, I am required to admit the possibility that I am wrong in my conviction and that He may not exist; but it does not follow that it is logical for me to doubt the existence of that God.