Messages From Ken Peck
1 - 20 of 85

What got into me
I I I I also have read Bishop Spong. He denies both the resurrection and the incarnation. He has adopted a method of biblical "exegesis," if one can call it that, that allows him to distort scripture to say whatever he wants it to say. He is pursuing a "moral" agenda which is totally secular and contrary to the teaching of the Church. He has made it absolutely clear that he refuses to accept the teaching or the discipline of

Chrysostom's pasha homily
I'm sorry that you find your mother's love for you so depressing. You will not find health until you learn to accept love and to forgive those who may have wronged you. Isn't it strange that you have more difficulty accepting the fact that you are loved than others have in loving you? Perhaps 'some Christians' like 'some non-Christians' can be mistaken about some things they don't know anything about. Yes, and rise to a new life. Christ is risen!

Chrysostom's pasha homily
No. That's what the Catholic Church is, alright. Christ is risen! _@ Ken Peck _ \<._ (_)/ (_)

Chrysostom's pasha homily
Sure. Open your eyes. There is a whole universe of which you are a part that is telling you of the glory of God. _@ Ken Peck _ \<._ (_)/ (_)

Chrysostom's pasha homily
If you mean by "empirical scientific" that which holds a priori that there is no God and that any evidence to the contrary is ruled out of order, then obviously in that biased and prejudiced court the answer would be "no." But in an honest court, I and you, are both evidence of God's grace and love. It is God who makes empiricism and science possible. Chrysostom and I celebrate part of that evidence. God has raised Jesus from the

Then it should be an easy task for you to demonstrate for us precisely what error he made in his argument. Your saying 'Aristotle was simply wrong' does not establish either the truth of your claim or the error of Aristotle. This of course is well known in logic as the argumentum ad hominem. It is also know to be a logical fallacy, in that it fails to prove the point by failing even to address the point. Granted that

Lesbianism and the bible
as No, assholes are not a consequence of living in a dysfunctional, disordered and disgraced way. Anuses can, of course, be used in dysfunctional, disordered and disgraced ways. And there are consequences for doing so. _@ Ken Peck _ \<._ (_)/ (_)

O.K., I will look up 'quantum fluctuations.' When I took physics in high school and college, though, quantum mechanics had to do with the movement of angelic sub-atomic particles from one place to another without passing through the intermediate space. It had nothing to do with some thing coming from nothing. I don't know. I've never discussed this here with you or anyone else. _@ Ken Peck _ \<._ (_)/ (_)

First cause 1/2
What? You never saw mommy kissing Santa? Pity. I have presented an outline of an argument that is fully developed by both Aristotle and Aquinas. It would seem to me that if the argument was in some way fallacious or the premises in error, that you learned atheists would be able to show the error of Aristotle or Aquinas, or at the very least the error of my summary of their argument, in some sort of logical reasoned way. What,

Jc historical?
I What do you mean by 'historical evidence?' In addition to the New Testament writings there are first century references to Jesus in Josepheus, a Palestinian Jew turned Roman. And there is a considerable body of material from the beginning of the second century onward, including references in the Talmud and some confused references in pagan Roman historians. Really most serious historians do not doubt that there was a historical Jesus in Palestine who was an itinerant teacher and who

I would suggest that even time requires a universe in which at least two things are related. In the presence of absolute nothing, time is meaningless. Time, as far as I can tell, is always the result of a relationship between things. Possibly. But then I would think you could show how the 'paradox' is merely 'apparent' or the invalidity of the explanation, either in terms of erroneous premises or logical fallicy. But you haven't done so anymore than a

Fundy mental frolics
I'm sorry to have to enlighten you, but part of the coronation ceremony of British monarchs, including Elizabeth II, involves the annointing of the monarch with Holy Oil by the Archbishop of Canterbury. In the case of Elizabeth II, I saw it. And there is a famous anthem by Handel, "Zadok the High Priest and Nathan the prophet annointed Solomon King," that is sung at the time of the annointing. Very interesting. It still does not refute the fact that

Sigh. Not only do you not read Aristotle, you do not even read the thread you respond to. Everything in the universe has a cause. Because everything in the universe is caused, it exists contingently upon its cause. But since nothing can be caused by nothing, there must be a cause that exists necessarily rather than contingently; that which exists necessarily does not require a cause in order to exist. _@ Ken Peck _ \<._

History 2/2
Assigning exact dates to the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus and the birth of Saul of Tarsus is somewhat difficult. However, if he were born after the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus, then perhaps he confused his Bar Mitzvah with the appearance of the risen Jesus. Saul's conversion was probably about ten years after the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus. In other words, your supposed birth time of Saul simply does not correspond with the evidence. _@

God is. _@ Ken Peck _ \<._ (_)/ (_)

a No, I wouldn't. It would appear to me that it is possible to demonstrate either the mistaken premises or faulty logic of any of Aristotle's mistaken 'geocentric ideas.' Furthermore if Aristotle held mistaken 'geocentric ideas' that in and of itself does not invalidate either his Physics or his Metaphysics, his works on logic, ethics, law, aesthetics etc. Insofar as these his arguments in each of these areas stand on their own, a mistake about whether the sun moves around

Nuthin much
Sorry. I meant obsolesent. Actually, even that is a wrong characterization. I picked up a college introductory physics textbook yesterday and was surprised to discover that in spite of the advances in physics over the past 40 years, the content of the text was pretty much the same as my high school and college physics textbooks. And, of course, the 'old' mechanics, electricity, and even light 'laws' still are quite useful to engineers these days. I seriously doubt if many

I seriously doubt that Darwin, or any other scientist, personally observed the origin of the species or that any scientific cosmologist personally observed the 'Big Bang.' I would think that _logically_ an 'infinite cause/effect chain' is incoherent. It certainly does nothing to 'explain' the origin of the universe. Generally speaking, the 'concept of infinity' is a rather odd abstraction. As I understand it, both infinity of time and of space are treated as 'circular' in much of modern physics. As

Accepting reality
Because same sex divorce would surely follow. _@ Ken Peck _ \<._ (_)/ (_)

Supply problem :)
At this time no one is denying Christians housing _in_this_country_ that I know of. However, in some instances Christians are treated as second-class citizens in this country. For example, the City of Dallas has a park down town. In that park there is a chapel. There is a Christian group that holds a worship service there every Wednesday at noon. That group is charged rent for the use of the chapel. There is a Moselm group that holds a worship