Everywhere and only, humility

Question of the Day
Have you thanked God for this failure already?

Quote of the Day
The most sensitive musical instrument is the human soul. The next… is the human voice. One must purify the soul until it begins to sound. — Arvo Part

Video of the Day
Music is my friend


Scriptures of the Day
God’s Creative Word

Beautiful readings to day for meditating on ourselves as a landscape.

In the OT reading, God’s Word is compared to nourishing water in the form of rain and snow. They come from Heaven to Earth, achieve their ends, and return a harvest to God. Our minds and hearts are the soil, sometimes hard as stone, rejecting God, other times thirsting and soaking up God’s Word, which is always abundantly available.

God’s Word is not just the scripture. The seed is also Jesus, Word made flesh, in the Eucharist. Every time we receive communion, a seed is cast.

When we do receive God’s Word, and it begins to bear fruit, we are likely to respond with a song, a song about the majesty and awesomeness of God, about the things He has done. Yet, as Saint Paul indicates in his letter to the Romans, life is not always a bowl of sweet berries. Gardening requires a lot of work, but also hope, patience, and perseverance. In this field of time, we work: tilling and preparing soil, planting, watering and fertilizing, and waiting on God, who causes the growth. And, of course, the pruning. Some of the “work” is ours to do; much is God’s.  As long as we remain in time, the full harvest is yet to come.

Old Testament: Isaiah 55:10–11

Thus says the LORD:
Just as from the heavens
the rain and snow come down
and do not return there
till they have watered the earth,
making it fertile and fruitful,
giving seed to the one who sows
and bread to the one who eats,
so shall my word be
that goes forth from my mouth;
my word shall not return to me void,
but shall do my will,
achieving the end for which I sent it.

Responsorial Psalm: 65

You have visited the land and watered it;
greatly have you enriched it.
God’s watercourses are filled;
you have prepared the grain.
R. The seed that falls on good ground will yield a fruitful harvest.

Thus have you prepared the land: drenching its furrows,
breaking up its clods,
Softening it with showers,
blessing its yield.
R. The seed that falls on good ground will yield a fruitful harvest.

You have crowned the year with your bounty,
and your paths overflow with a rich harvest;
The untilled meadows overflow with it,
and rejoicing clothes the hills.
R. The seed that falls on good ground will yield a fruitful harvest.

The fields are garmented with flocks
and the valleys blanketed with grain.
They shout and sing for joy.
R. The seed that falls on good ground will yield a fruitful harvest.

Epistle: Romans 8:18–23

Brothers and sisters:
I consider that the sufferings of this present time are as nothing
compared with the glory to be revealed for us.
For creation awaits with eager expectation
the revelation of the children of God;
for creation was made subject to futility,
not of its own accord but because of the one who subjected it,
in hope that creation itself
would be set free from slavery to corruption
and share in the glorious freedom of the children of God.
We know that all creation is groaning in labor pains even until now;
and not only that, but we ourselves,
who have the firstfruits of the Spirit,
we also groan within ourselves
as we wait for adoption, the redemption of our bodies.

Gospel: Matthew 13:1–23

On that day, Jesus went out of the house and sat down by the sea.
Such large crowds gathered around him
that he got into a boat and sat down,
and the whole crowd stood along the shore.
And he spoke to them at length in parables, saying:
“A sower went out to sow.
And as he sowed, some seed fell on the path,
and birds came and ate it up.
Some fell on rocky ground, where it had little soil.
It sprang up at once because the soil was not deep,
and when the sun rose it was scorched,
and it withered for lack of roots.
Some seed fell among thorns, and the thorns grew up and choked it.
But some seed fell on rich soil, and produced fruit,
a hundred or sixty or thirtyfold.
Whoever has ears ought to hear.”

The disciples approached him and said,
“Why do you speak to them in parables?”
He said to them in reply,
“Because knowledge of the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven
has been granted to you, but to them it has not been granted.
To anyone who has, more will be given and he will grow rich;
from anyone who has not, even what he has will be taken away.
This is why I speak to them in parables, because
they look but do not see and hear but do not listen or understand.
Isaiah’s prophecy is fulfilled in them, which says:
You shall indeed hear but not understand,
you shall indeed look but never see.
Gross is the heart of this people,
they will hardly hear with their ears,
they have closed their eyes,
lest they see with their eyes
and hear with their ears
and understand with their hearts and be converted,
and I heal them.

“But blessed are your eyes, because they see,
and your ears, because they hear.
Amen, I say to you, many prophets and righteous people
longed to see what you see but did not see it,
and to hear what you hear but did not hear it.

“Hear then the parable of the sower.
The seed sown on the path is the one
who hears the word of the kingdom without understanding it,
and the evil one comes and steals away
what was sown in his heart.
The seed sown on rocky ground
is the one who hears the word and receives it at once with joy.
But he has no root and lasts only for a time.
When some tribulation or persecution comes because of the word,
he immediately falls away.
The seed sown among thorns is the one who hears the word,
but then worldly anxiety and the lure of riches choke the word
and it bears no fruit.
But the seed sown on rich soil
is the one who hears the word and understands it,
who indeed bears fruit and yields a hundred or sixty or thirtyfold.”

Life with dignity

You have a “right to die,” a euphemism that means others have a right to kill you,
but do you have a right to live and receive care?
and participate in experimental treatments, when no other options exist?

Great Ormond Street Hospital answers, no.

Little Charlie Gard has no idea that he is the center of the latest battle between the insidious culture of death and the culture of life. He has no idea how many people know his name and are praying for him and his parents. He has no idea that his plight has inspired and moved the Pope and the president of the United States. While I am united with Charlie Gard, his family, and supporters in prayer, I recognize a greater need to pray for the hospital administrators and doctors who would deny care and treatment for a terminally ill baby and hasten his death, and for the judges and politicians who support the attitudes and practices promoted by the culture of death.

“death with dignity” is a misleading phrase that promoters of the culture of death hide behind. The term delineates how far they are willing to accompany someone who is suffering (not far enough). In fact, not only have we have lost all our dignity when we purposefully kill someone, but the person we kill loses his or her dignity as well. The sentence issued: your life is not worth living. At issue is how do we help those who are suffering (for any reason) live not only with dignity, but also with hope. Hope that both their lives and their suffering have meaning.

The photos of Charlie Gard with his ventilator remind me of photos of another baby, a little girl whose name the Pope and President Trump will never know. Baby May Faith passed from this life earlier this year, just shy of her first birthday. She spent her entire life at the hospital. She had problems with her organs, was in need of various surgeries. She eventually got well enough for a tracheotomy, but then her health declined, and the next surgery was postponed. Her mother’s greatest hope and dream—to bring baby May Faith home—was not realized. I journeyed with the parents in prayer, watching and waiting with them, hoping with them with every smile their daughter smiled at them, and grieving with them when her body seemed to boycott for no reason. As with all situations, I ask “what is God up to?” (Because I know God is always up to something!)

What is the meaning of these children’s lives?

These children have the power to draw forth from us faith, hope, and love. What gifts! What gifts are their lives, and how they have the ability to enlarge our hearts.

The parents were already devout Catholics. With the birth of their sixth child, I saw, as did everyone, Baby May Faith’s parents achieve greater levels of faith and hope, as well as surrender to God. My friend and I were astonished by how the parents cooperated with God’s grace, which sustained them each day. We heard first hand from the parents how God blessed them daily during their trial. The gift of a sick child burst open their hearts, which they readily shared with the prayer circle via e-mail updates. To accompany the family during the trial of a sick infant was a great privilege for me. No doubt the life of this little girl, the faith of the parents affected the medical staff at the hospital, as well.

Removing Baby May Faith’s breathing tube was not up for discussion, even though miracles were required for this child to go home, let alone survive childhood. To be drawn to kill these innocent children under the guise of “compassion” is to be misguided and misled by the evil one deep into the culture of death. What darkness people must live in when they conclude that they only way to “help” someone is to end their life.

Amen, I say to you, whatever you did for one of these least brothers of mine, you did for me. — Matthew 25:40

The case of Charlie Gard highlights how the culture of death is spreading, and that should concern everyone. To give hospital administrators the power to deny treatment and care for the terminally ill has led to denial of care for those who are merely sick. In the name of “patient rights,” patients are losing their rights to treatment.

My own mother, in her very early 70s, went to the emergency room for stomach pain and was diagnosed with an infection and given antibiotics. While there someone (not her doctor or even a nurse caring for her) randomly came in her room and asked if she wanted a DNR. That means “do not resuscitate.” It is hospital protocol to ask these questions of patients, even when they are not terminally ill. My mom did not fully understand the implications, and thanks be to God, someone explained to her what it meant, and they cancelled the DNR and removed the “go ahead and kill me” bracelet from her wrist. So if my mom had suffered a heart attack while in the hospital being treated for an infection, she would have been denied care and might have died. And if that DNR order had not been removed, if my mother had suffered a heart attack a week later, she would not have received treatment, and probably would have died.

The Dutch continue to expand the list of people whom doctors can kill. In the case of one woman with dementia, her husband and doctor decided themselves it was time for this woman to die. She was too much trouble. The woman may have had dementia, but she knew what her doctor was about to do and resisted. In that moment it was not her wish to die. She fully understood, and they had to restrain her, give her a sedative, so they could administer a lethal injection. She was denied both life and her dignity. She made the mistake of signing a paper that the doctors could kill her.

The next step for “death with dignity” advocates is to reclassify food and hydration as “extraordinary means.” For now, Oregon voted down a bill that would allow doctors to starve to death patients with dementia and Alzheimer’s disease.

You may not know this… I did not, until it happened to my grandmother. But an elderly woman with a UTI can exhibit signs of dementia. My 89-year-old grandmother, who is mostly lucid, although slow and confused at times. was acting stranger and more despondent than usual. This was going on for a few weeks, and then it was discovered that she had a UTI. As soon as she got on antibiotics, she reverted back to her normal condition.

Do advocates of euthanasia believe governments should end the death penalty?

Just this week, the governor of Virginia (who claims to oppose the death penalty) refused to pardon a man convicted of killing a security guard and sheriff’s deputy. Although he was found to be mentally ill and unable to distinguish between his delusions and reality, his life was not spared. Rather, he was administered a three-drug cocktail which may or may not prevent the condemned person from experiencing pain.

Some tricky headlines and background

  • What does The Washington Post’s Lindsey Bever mean by “allowed to die” in her headline “This terminally ill infant will be allowed to die. But first, his parents will say goodbye.”
    • Does she mean the hospital will be allowed to deny the child care and hasten his death, which is the decision upheld by the European Court of “Human Rights” by its decision not to intervene?
    • Charlie has no voice to say whether or not he does or does not want treatment; his parents are his voice and decision-makers
    • At issue is whether or not doctors and hospitals can deny care and treatment, and when courts side with the culture of death, we are all in trouble
  • And then we have Jon Sharman’s article “’Stop attacking doctors and read the full Charlie Gard court judgments,’ pediatrician tells social media users” in The Independent.
    • The doctors are entitled to their medical opinion, but we cannot ignore completely parental rights in health care decisions for their children
    • I don’t need to read the particulars of Charlie Gard’s condition, because Charlie Gard’s case is going to court not just for him, but for everyone who is ill and their caregivers seeking to get the best treatment available
    • How we treat Charlie Gard says who we are, not who he is
    • Great Ormond Hospital’s demand to its “right” to determine when Charlie Gard dies is about having power and dominion; if GOSH does not want to care for Charlie Gard, then they have a responsibility to release him to other doctors and facilities that will care for him
    • For Great Ormond Hospital to schedule Charlie’s death on its terms, is a tremendous loss of hope; for if Charlie was released and received experimental treatment available now, and that treatment extended and improved his life for even a month; for Charlie to give his parents ten more smiles that they might not have otherwise had, means that Great Ormond Hospital is wrong in its position; it is too great of a defeat for them to bear in such a public way; not to mention what doctors might learn from having had the opportunity to treat Charlie (instead of kill him) and the other children who might benefit as a result
    • That’s not to say there aren’t times when there is excessive treatment, but we aren’t talking about that in this case; excessive treatment often does more harm than good
  • How “right to die” came to America (National Center for Life and Liberty)


Join the Worldwide 12-hour Prayer Vigil for Charlie Gard,
Thursday, July 13, 5 a.m. London Time, midnight Eastern

We pray to the Lord:

For a growing love of each human person
from conception to natural death;

That the life of every human person,
from conception to natural death,
might be enshrined and protected in our laws;

For every little child who is ill or in pain:
that the beauty of their lives
might bring patience and hope;

For a growing love of God’s little ones,
in the womb, in the nursing home, or at death’s door:
That we might love with the love of Jesus;

For those who have grown old or weak:
that we might see God’s power in their fragility;

For those struggling with terrible diseases:
that each day might be a new revelation
of God’s love for them;

For all who are about to die:
that through our love, care, and devotion,
they might know the beauty of life,
to the moment of their final breath;

For those tempted to despair by constant pain:
that they might join their suffering
to the Cross of Christ;

For medical researchers:
that they may be inspired and strengthened
by a love for every human person,
from the first moment of conception;

For doctors:
who in their practice abort unborn children:
that God might give them the grace
to turn from sin and remember the Gospel;

For those who study medicine:
that they may be driven by a desire
to heal and protect very human person;

Lord, hear our prayer.

Sign Petition to Save Charlie Gard
(and all the other lives at stake when doctors, hospital administrators,
and courts seem to think they have the right to kill innocent people)

(more than) A few newsbits about Baby Charlie and his cause,
which is the plight of all the vulnerable sick

Catholic Health Care Directives

The truth that life is a precious gift from God has profound implications for the question of stewardship over human life. We are not the owners of our lives and, hence, do not have absolute power over life. We have a duty to preserve our life and to use it for the glory of God, but the duty to preserve life is not absolute, for we may reject life-prolonging procedures that are insufficiently beneficial or excessively burdensome. Suicide and euthanasia are never morally acceptable options.

The task of medicine is to care even when it cannot cure. Physicians and their patients must evaluate the use of the technology at their disposal. Reflection on the innate dignity of human life in all its dimensions and on the purpose of medical care is indispensable for formulating a true moral judgment about the use of technology to maintain life. The use of life-sustaining technology is judged in light of the Christian meaning of life, suffering, and death. In this way two extremes are avoided: on the one hand, an insistence on useless or burdensome technology even when a patient may legitimately wish to forgo it and, on the other hand, the withdrawal of technology with the intention of causing death.

The Declaration on Euthanasia, May 5, 1980

56. A person has a moral obligation to use ordinary or proportionate means of preserving his or her life. Proportionate means are those that in the judgment of the patient offer a reasonable hope of benefit and do not entail an excessive burden or impose excessive expense on the family or the community.

57. A person may forgo extraordinary or disproportionate means of preserving life.
Disproportionate means are those that in the patient’s judgment do not offer a reasonable hope of benefit or entail an excessive burden, or impose excessive expense on the family or the community

So many questions, some of which are

  • Who determines if your life has value?
  • Are you even capable of ascertaining the full meaning and measure of your life, including your suffering?
  • Should doctors have a right to kill you against your own wishes? Should judges absolve these doctors of murder?
  • Should doctors be allowed to deny you food and hydration and starve you to death when you are incapacitated?
  • Should hospitals be able to override the rights of parents to determine if their children will get treatment available at other medical facilities?
  • Will America lead the world in creating a culture of life? If we don’t, who will? Poland. (Not Canada, nor Belgium, nor any EU country)
  • Regarding Charlie, specifically, how long would he live if the hospital continued to provide care for him until natural death? 3 months? 6 months? 1 year?
    • By God’s will and grace, Charlie has lived six additional months; usually the disease is fatal during infancy, but some have survived into their teenage years (per article in the Evening Standard UK)
    • And he has been deprived of experimental treatment that could have changed the course of his life as well as lengthened it; and we would all have had the opportunity to be more human in caring for him; and scientists would have valuable information about their treatment and understanding of a rare disease

We love him more than life itself, and if he is still fighting, then we are still fighting. — parents of Charlie Gard

A post with no name

A post for the nameless babies killed by abortion

Today is the Feast of the Ascension. It is supposed to be a day of hope, a day to celebrate Jesus’ victory over death. Death has been conquered, and is a door through which we pass to eternal life… an eternity of unimaginable joy, where mourning turns to dancing, or of damnation and everlasting suffering.

With Jesus’ ascension into heaven, we begin the waiting period; we wait, as instructed by Jesus, for the Holy Spirit to descend upon us (so start your Pentecost novena tomorrow). And if our lives are not already oriented toward heaven, this would be a great day to re-orient. If the gifts of the Holy Spirit are not at work in you (all the baptized received these gifts), then it is time to see how you might exercise and grow them.

But before I had the chance to harness and indulge in the fullness and the joy of possessing this faith-filled hope, I happened to see the preview clip of some video footage taken by the Center for Medical Progress during their undercover investigation of the abortion industry. A judge had banned the footage from public dissemination, so I’m not sure how this clip was able to be released. No matter, because YouTube pulled the video.

Horrific Video of the Day
Center for Medical Progress’ undercover video of presentations and conversations at the National Abortion Federation conference/trade show 2014/2015

One article said the video was posted yesterday, but when I went to the youtube page, the upload date was early May. My point is that enough people saw the preview clip before YouTube removed the video for violating its terms of service. Abortion is that gruesome. The video is disgusting and difficult to watch, but it shows the real world of the abortion industry.

For now you can’t see the clip, but please head over to National Review, which has a good transcript of the admissions of abortion workers. (I do wonder why the video was not posted directly on the Center for Medical Progress website.) [UPDATE: Lila Rose / Live Action News has the video available for viewing. You’ll see why Planned Parenthood and the National Abortion Federation have worked so hard to prevent the American public from seeing the undercover footage and the massive campaign to try to debunk CMP’s videos and discredit the work of David Daleiden and Sandra Merritt.]

When Cecile Richards makes public statements and in her videos to promote Planned Parenthood, she is full of doublespeak that echoes Satan tempting Eve in the Garden of Eden. But when these women speak to each other at their conference, they are more honest with themselves and each other.

Quote of the Day
from the video, which provides the public with an honest look at what the abortion industry talks about behind closed doors

Given that we actually see the fetus the same way, and given that we might actually both agree that there’s violence in here. …Let’s just give them all the violence, it’s a person, it’s killing, let’s just give them all that.
— Dr Lisa Harris, director of Planned Parenthood Michigan, at the National Abortion Federation Conference

Some Media Coverage of Center for Medical Progress’ Undercover Footage

Take Action

A prayer for conversion and intercession

May God have mercy on us and our country. May the Holy Spirit lead us into all truth. May we be freed from the snares of the devil. May we admit our ignorance, our selfishness, our hardness of hearts. May we repent of our killing of innocent children and lack of respect for the dignity of human life. May we have the courage to embrace the fullness of life. May we have the generosity to help others carry their burdens. May the innocents intercede for us.

Pray by name for the following people working in the abortion industry:

  • Dr. Lisa Harris, Medical Director, Planned Parenthood of Michigan
  • Dr. Susan Robinson, Abortion provider, Planned Parenthood Mar Monte
    “The fetus is a tough little object and, taking it apart, I mean taking it apart, on day one, is very difficult.”
  • Talcott Camp, J.D., Deputy Director, ACLU “Reproductive Health Freedom”
  • Dr. Deb Nucatola, Senior Director of Medical Services, Planned Parenthood Federation of America
  • Dr. Uta Landy, Founder, Consortium of Abortion Providers (CAPS) Planned Parenthood Federation of America
    “An eyeball just fell down into my lap, and that is gross!”
  • Dr. Stacy De-Lin, Director of Abortion Services, Planned Parenthood of New York City
    “But we certainly do intact D&E’s”
  • Dr. Ann Schutt-Aine, Director of Abortion Services, Planned Parenthood Gulf Coast
    “I might ask for a second set of forceps to hold the body in the cervix, and pull off a leg or two, so it’s not a PBA (partial birth abortion, which is illegal).”
  • Dr. Leslie Drummond, abortion provider, Planned Parenthood Mar Monte
    “Last week I was in Sacramento, and she said I need four intact limbs. And I said, you want what?”
  • Deb VanDerhei, National Director CAPS Planned Parenthood Federation of America
    “But the truth is that some might want to do it for, to increase their revenues. And we can’t stop them.”

Faith & science: Human-animal chimera research

Blurring the Lines Between Humans and Animals

What will happen when scientists take human stem cells and insert them into animal embryos? We’re about to find out.

Opportunity for Public Comment

“The National Institutes of Health (NIH) is seeking public comments on the proposed scope of certain human-animal chimera research that will be considered internally by an NIH steering committee and on a proposal to amend Section IV and Section V of the NIH Guidelines for Human Stem Cell Research.”

The 30-day public comment period ends September 6, 2016.

Questions of the Day

  • What does it mean to be a human being?
  • What is the value of human life? What happens when people are treated as products and are assigned a dollar value either in whole or for parts?
  • In what stages of development is human life worth protecting?
  • Is human life ever disposable? Who decides?
  • Who should make babies besides mom and dad? Should human beings be developed in a laboratory? Should scientists make human beings for the sole purpose of research and should your tax dollars fund that kind of research?
  • How do we demarcate ethical and unethical scientific research using human-animal chimeras?
  • Is now the time to end the moratorium on human-animal research? What ethical issues, if any, have been resolved in the past year during the moratorium?
  • Are the “safeguards” that the NIH has put in place sufficient?
  • If there is nothing inherently wrong about creating human-animal chimeras, then why is it forbidden to bring such creations to term? If there is something inherently wrong about human-animal combinations and they violate a fundamental ethical principle, why are they allowed at the embryonic stage?
  • “What if the embryo that develops is mostly human? It’s something that we don’t expect, but no one has done this experiment, so we can’t rule it out.”

Start Learning About the Human-Animal Chimera Research
including Catholic and NonCatholic Perspectives

Quotes of the Day

Dickey-Wicker Amendment

(a) None of the funds made available in this Act may be used for—

(1) the creation of a human embryo or embryos for research purposes; or

(2) research in which a human embryo or embryos are destroyed, discarded, or knowingly subjected to risk of injury or death greater than that allowed for research on fetuses in utero under 45 CFR 46.204(b) and section 498(b) of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 289g(b)).

(b) For purposes of this section, the term ‘‘human embryo or embryos’’ includes any organism, not protected as a human subject under 45 CFR 46 as of the date of the enactment of this Act, that is derived by fertilization, parthenogenesis, cloning, or any other means from one or more human gametes or human diploid cells.

Instruction on Respect for Human Life in Its Origin
and on the Dignity of Procreation Replies to Certain Questions of the Day

The gift of life which God the Creator and Father has entrusted to man calls him to appreciate the inestimable value of what he has been given and to take responsibility for it: this fundamental principle must be placed at the centre of one’s reflection in order to clarify and solve the moral problems raised by artificial interventions on life as it originates and on the processes of procreation. Thanks to the progress of the biological and medical sciences, man has at his disposal ever more effective therapeutic resources; but he can also acquire new powers, with unforeseeable consequences, over human life at its very beginning and in its first stages. Various procedures now make it possible to intervene not only in order to assist but also to dominate the processes of procreation. These techniques can enable man to “take in hand his own destiny”, but they also expose him “to the temptation to go beyond the limits of a reasonable dominion over nature”.(1) They might constitute progress in the service of man, but they also involve serious risks. Many people are therefore expressing an urgent appeal that in interventions on procreation the values and rights of the human person be safeguarded. Requests for clarification and guidance are coming not only from the faithful but also from those who recognize the Church as “an expert in humanity ” (2) with a mission to serve the “civilization of love” (3) and of life.

It would on the one hand be illusory to claim that scientific research and its applications are morally neutral; on the other hand one cannot derive criteria for guidance from mere technical efficiency, from research’s possible usefulness to some at the expense of others, or, worse still, from prevailing ideologies. Thus science and technology require, for their own intrinsic meaning, an unconditional respect for the fundamental criteria of the moral law: that is to say, they must be at the service of the human person, of his inalienable rights and his true and integral good according to the design and will of God.(7) The rapid development of technological discoveries gives greater urgency to this need to respect the criteria just mentioned: science without conscience can only lead to man’s ruin. “Our era needs such wisdom more than bygone ages if the discoveries made by man are to be further humanized. For the future of the world stands in peril unless wiser people are forthcoming”.(8)

Science & faith: the conflict myth

Interview of the Day (courtesy of Socrates in the City)
Eric Metaxas talks with physicist Ard Louis

Asking good questions, appreciating the beauty of frozen waterfalls, and knowing what we don’t know

  • what is the value of human life?
  • what is the source of the laws of nature?
  • what mystery of life stops atheists in their tracks?
  • does science point us to God?
  • in looking at the world, do you start with the assumption that there is no God or that there is a God, and how that changes the course of discovery?
  • how should we live?
  •  what is a “theistic evolutionist”?
  • when I am in the laboratory, what am I doing as a Christian?
  • what is the scientific answer [to the great mysteries of life]? > we don’t know