John K. Roth And Human Repentance Needing To Be Matched By God (PhD Edit)
Photo from a British Isles recent trip: 20240402
Preface
This article originally published on 20110801. It has been reformatted for an entry on academia.edu, 20240601.
2010 Theodicy and Practical Theology: PhD thesis, the University of Wales, Trinity Saint David, Lampeter
John K. Roth
John K. Roth (1981) also explains within ‘A Theodicy of Protest’[1] that the finite, limited God of William James offered him some intellectual appeal.[2] He reasons that to deny God completely would be going too far, but to affirm God’s total goodness and to apologize for a weak God in anyway would also be going too far.[3] Roth’s theodicy of protest puts God on trial,[4] and any human repentance will have to be matched by God.[5] Stephen Davis (1981) suggests that Roth has given up the notion that God is ‘perfectly morally good.’[6] Roth insists that most theodicy approaches very wrongly legitimize evil.[7] They can attempt to make suffering all deserved, and/or create happy endings due to God’s ultimate goodness.[8] There is within this view ‘no legitimation of evil to acknowledge its existence.’[9] The excessive amount of evil that exists in human history demonstrates that there is an evil side to God which willingly allows it.[10] Davis explains that for Roth, God is not really omnipotent as God does not possess the perfect goodness to redeem all evil.[11] Human beings lack the ability to envision how God could use all the evil within world history for the greater good.[12] Roth, in contrast to Davis, states that he actually shares with Davis a belief in God’s omnipotence.[13] Davis speculates that Roth’s approach weakens a view on God’s omnipotence,[14] but Roth’s claim that he holds to omnipotence should be taken seriously.[15] Roth’s interpretation makes sense, as if Roth sees God as all-powerful then the evil God willingly allows that cannot all be used for greater good, is not redeemable[16] and therefore God should repent of his evil.[17]
I share with Roth an intellectual and personal frustration with the evil that God willingly allows.[18] A theodicy of protest is not completely unmerited as all persons have suffered by the hand of God that is ultimately responsible, logically, as he is all-powerful.[19] Within my Reformed sovereignty theodicy view which I explain within Chapter Three in particular (of my PhD), I reason God does use all evil for the greater good with pure motives.[20] This view accepts a traditional view of omnipotence.[21] Roth does have hope as he looks for a resurrection of the dead in the future, and in the present realm hopes that somehow ‘the waste’ as in unnecessary evil, will be placed in check.[22] He views the traditional concept of God that Davis has as a God that is ‘hidden, absent, even non-existent.’[23] A trust and hope in any type of God is risky, but he reasons that the hope does not completely die.[24] I question whether an omnipotent God with less than perfect motives that would will so much evil, not for the greater good throughout history, would ever change his ways or be convinced by finite creatures to do so.[25]
John K. Roth (1981) also explains within ‘A Theodicy of Protest’[1] that the finite, limited God of William James offered him some intellectual appeal.[2] He reasons that to deny God completely would be going too far, but to affirm God’s total goodness and to apologize for a weak God in anyway would also be going too far.[3] Roth’s theodicy of protest puts God on trial,[4] and any human repentance will have to be matched by God.[5] Stephen Davis (1981) suggests that Roth has given up the notion that God is ‘perfectly morally good.’[6] Roth insists that most theodicy approaches very wrongly legitimize evil.[7] They can attempt to make suffering all deserved, and/or create happy endings due to God’s ultimate goodness.[8] There is within this view ‘no legitimation of evil to acknowledge its existence.’[9] The excessive amount of evil that exists in human history demonstrates that there is an evil side to God which willingly allows it.[10] Davis explains that for Roth, God is not really omnipotent as God does not possess the perfect goodness to redeem all evil.[11] Human beings lack the ability to envision how God could use all the evil within world history for the greater good.[12] Roth, in contrast to Davis, states that he actually shares with Davis a belief in God’s omnipotence.[13] Davis speculates that Roth’s approach weakens a view on God’s omnipotence,[14] but Roth’s claim that he holds to omnipotence should be taken seriously.[15] Roth’s interpretation makes sense, as if Roth sees God as all-powerful then the evil God willingly allows that cannot all be used for greater good, is not redeemable[16] and therefore God should repent of his evil.[17]
I share with Roth an intellectual and personal frustration with the evil that God willingly allows.[18] A theodicy of protest is not completely unmerited as all persons have suffered by the hand of God that is ultimately responsible, logically, as he is all-powerful.[19] Within my Reformed sovereignty theodicy view which I explain within Chapter Three in particular (of my PhD), I reason God does use all evil for the greater good with pure motives.[20] This view accepts a traditional view of omnipotence.[21] Roth does have hope as he looks for a resurrection of the dead in the future, and in the present realm hopes that somehow ‘the waste’ as in unnecessary evil, will be placed in check.[22] He views the traditional concept of God that Davis has as a God that is ‘hidden, absent, even non-existent.’[23] A trust and hope in any type of God is risky, but he reasons that the hope does not completely die.[24] I question whether an omnipotent God with less than perfect motives that would will so much evil, not for the greater good throughout history, would ever change his ways or be convinced by finite creatures to do so.[25]
---
[1] Within Encountering Evil, Stephen T. Davis (ed.)
[2] Roth (1981: 9).
[3] Roth (1981: 10). I can agree that if God is indeed weak, it should be pointed out as such, and not defended.
[4] Roth (1981: 10). And God’s supposed omnipotence as well, I would suggest could naturally be challenged.
[5] Roth (1981: 10). Roth’s position assumes that God has moral weakness which finite human beings could intellectually detect. God would have to share the blame for the problem of evil. Phillips (2005: 116-117).
[6] Davis (1981: 22). Phillips writes that Roth’s analysis leads to the idea that God is not perfectly good. Phillips (2005: 27).
[7] Roth (1981: 19).
[8] Roth (1981: 19).
[9] Roth (1981: 19).
[10] Davis (1981: 22).
[11] Davis (1981: 23).
[12] Davis (1981: 23). There is certainly a degree of truth to the idea that the evil God allows often cannot be reasonably understood by persons. This could, however, be due as much, or even more, to finite human nature and reasoning as opposed to a moral deficiency or lack of omnipotence with God.
[13] Roth (1981: 32). Phillips verifies this as well. Phillips (2005: 22).
[14] Davis (1981: 23).
[15] Roth (1981: 32).
[16] Roth (1981: 19). Davis (1981: 23).
[17] Roth (1981: 10).
[18] Roth (1981: 8-10).
[19] Roth (1981: 32).
[20] Gratuitous evil is also reviewed and discussed in Chapter Four.
[21] Kreeft and Tacelli (1994: 96). Bavinck (1918)(2006: 233 Volume 2). Weber (1955)(1981: 440).
[22] Roth (1981: 35). Phillips dislikes the use of the term ‘waste’ in regard to humanity and evil and suffering and reasons a loss and gain approach in regard to individual persons is not reasonable. Phillips (2005: 70-71). This is an important point, for the loss suffered by a single individual should never be underestimated for the sake of many persons that do not suffer in the same way and may in some way possibly gain from the suffering of one.
[23] Roth (1981: 35).
[24] Roth (1981: 35).
[25] It is also possible that given God’s omnipotence as Roth accepts, what he and others with similar views understand as evil within God’s nature is simply all goodness. Roth (1981:32). This is not my Reformed view which views evil as separate from good, and not part of God’s nature, but is a reasonable deduction based on Roth’s assumptions on the all-powerful nature of God.
---
Bibliography from PhD
[2] Roth (1981: 9).
[3] Roth (1981: 10). I can agree that if God is indeed weak, it should be pointed out as such, and not defended.
[4] Roth (1981: 10). And God’s supposed omnipotence as well, I would suggest could naturally be challenged.
[5] Roth (1981: 10). Roth’s position assumes that God has moral weakness which finite human beings could intellectually detect. God would have to share the blame for the problem of evil. Phillips (2005: 116-117).
[6] Davis (1981: 22). Phillips writes that Roth’s analysis leads to the idea that God is not perfectly good. Phillips (2005: 27).
[7] Roth (1981: 19).
[8] Roth (1981: 19).
[9] Roth (1981: 19).
[10] Davis (1981: 22).
[11] Davis (1981: 23).
[12] Davis (1981: 23). There is certainly a degree of truth to the idea that the evil God allows often cannot be reasonably understood by persons. This could, however, be due as much, or even more, to finite human nature and reasoning as opposed to a moral deficiency or lack of omnipotence with God.
[13] Roth (1981: 32). Phillips verifies this as well. Phillips (2005: 22).
[14] Davis (1981: 23).
[15] Roth (1981: 32).
[16] Roth (1981: 19). Davis (1981: 23).
[17] Roth (1981: 10).
[18] Roth (1981: 8-10).
[19] Roth (1981: 32).
[20] Gratuitous evil is also reviewed and discussed in Chapter Four.
[21] Kreeft and Tacelli (1994: 96). Bavinck (1918)(2006: 233 Volume 2). Weber (1955)(1981: 440).
[22] Roth (1981: 35). Phillips dislikes the use of the term ‘waste’ in regard to humanity and evil and suffering and reasons a loss and gain approach in regard to individual persons is not reasonable. Phillips (2005: 70-71). This is an important point, for the loss suffered by a single individual should never be underestimated for the sake of many persons that do not suffer in the same way and may in some way possibly gain from the suffering of one.
[23] Roth (1981: 35).
[24] Roth (1981: 35).
[25] It is also possible that given God’s omnipotence as Roth accepts, what he and others with similar views understand as evil within God’s nature is simply all goodness. Roth (1981:32). This is not my Reformed view which views evil as separate from good, and not part of God’s nature, but is a reasonable deduction based on Roth’s assumptions on the all-powerful nature of God.
---
Bibliography from PhD
BAVINCK, HERMAN (1918)(2006) Reformed Dogmatics Volume 2: God and Creation, John Bolt (gen.ed.), Translated by John Vriend, Baker Academic, Grand Rapids.
BAVINCK, HERMAN (1918)(2006) Reformed Dogmatics Volume 3: Sin and Salvation in Christ, John Bolt (gen.ed.), Translated by John Vriend, Baker Academic, Grand Rapids.
DAVIS, STEPHEN T. (1981)(ed.), Encountering Evil, Atlanta, John Knox Press.
JAMES, WILLIAM (1892-1907)(1969) The Moral Philosophy of William James, John K. Roth (ed.), Thomas Y. Crowell Company, New York.
BAVINCK, HERMAN (1918)(2006) Reformed Dogmatics Volume 3: Sin and Salvation in Christ, John Bolt (gen.ed.), Translated by John Vriend, Baker Academic, Grand Rapids.
DAVIS, STEPHEN T. (1981)(ed.), Encountering Evil, Atlanta, John Knox Press.
JAMES, WILLIAM (1892-1907)(1969) The Moral Philosophy of William James, John K. Roth (ed.), Thomas Y. Crowell Company, New York.
JAMES, WILLIAM (1893)(2004) William James and a Science of Religions, Wayne Proudfoot (ed.), Columbia University Press, New York.
JAMES, WILLIAM (1902-1910)(1987) Writings 1902 – 1910, The Library of America, New York.
JAMES, WILLIAM (1902)(2002) The Varieties of Religious Experience, Prometheus Books, Amherst, New York.
JAMES, WILLIAM (1904) ‘Does ‘Consciousness’ Exist?’, in Journal of Philosophy, Psychology, and Scientific Methods, Volume 1, pages 477-491. New York, Columbia University.
JAMES, WILLIAM (1907) Pragmatism: A New Name for Some Old Ways of Thinking, Longman and Green Company, New York.
KREEFT, PETER AND RONALD K. TACELLI (1994) Handbook of Christian Apologetics, Downers Grove, Illinois, InterVarsity Press.
PHILLIPS, D.Z. (1981) Encountering Evil, Stephen T. Davis (ed.), Atlanta, John Knox Press.
PHILLIPS, D.Z. (2005) The Problem of Evil and the Problem of God, Fortress Press, Minneapolis.
ROTH, JOHN K. ‘Introduction’ (1892-1907)(1969) in The Moral Philosophy of William James, John K. Roth (ed.), Thomas Y. Crowell Company, New York.
ROTH, JOHN K. (1981) Encountering Evil, Stephen T. Davis (ed.), Atlanta, John Knox Press.
WEBER, OTTO (1955)(1981) Foundations of Dogmatics, Volumes 1 and 2, Translated and annotated by Darrell L. Guder, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.
PHILLIPS, D.Z. (1981) Encountering Evil, Stephen T. Davis (ed.), Atlanta, John Knox Press.
PHILLIPS, D.Z. (2005) The Problem of Evil and the Problem of God, Fortress Press, Minneapolis.
ROTH, JOHN K. ‘Introduction’ (1892-1907)(1969) in The Moral Philosophy of William James, John K. Roth (ed.), Thomas Y. Crowell Company, New York.
ROTH, JOHN K. (1981) Encountering Evil, Stephen T. Davis (ed.), Atlanta, John Knox Press.
WEBER, OTTO (1955)(1981) Foundations of Dogmatics, Volumes 1 and 2, Translated and annotated by Darrell L. Guder, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.
March 15, 2014
The philosophical concept that 'any human repentance will have to be matched by God is presented.'
It has God philosophically and theologically being placed in the docks. The idea of God being in the docks was a criticism of theodicy work from the internal, Wales reviewer, a Roman Catholic philosopher of religion at my PhD Viva. In agreement I do not think God belongs in the docks.
There is historical religious history from Scripture, both the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament that presents God directly and implied as eternal and infinite, existing prior to divine creation of matter in Genesis 1. God has sovereign, providential control. God repeatedly in Scripture claims to be holy as in Exodus 3. Humanity on the other hand is created, finite and sinful (Genesis, Romans, Galatians, Ephesians, Hebrews, James, 1 John, Revelation as some sources). Therefore God is not in need of repenting of how he deals with humanity.
God has also by the grace through faith (Ephesians 1-2) chosen and saved those in Christ from sin/sins for good works. A new resurrection body free from sin and suffering is the end for those in Christ (1 Corinthians 15, Revelation 20-22).
On the other hand, in fairness to critics of theism and Christianity, I, as someone that suffers with sin and finiteness as does all of humanity, can very much understand frustration with God, or a theistic concept. Life is not near what it could be as far as fulfillment for many in humanity. Life is often not one of peace and happiness for many. Seemingly many times God could do much more to assist persons.
Those in the Church do not act in very good ways to assist others, or love others at times. And for those that do have a significantly fulfilling, happy life, it ends in death. At times evangelical answers for the problem of evil and suffering are overly-spiritualized and simplistic. Overly-spiritualized as in downplaying the importance of present life in favour of the next life and realm.
The importance of the next realm and everlasting/eternal life in contrast to this present temporal realm does have its Biblical foundation as can be seen in the writings of the Apostles and words of Christ.
Example
New American Standard Bible
Romans 8: 18-25
18For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory that is to be revealed to us.
19For the anxious longing of the creation waits eagerly for the revealing of the sons of God.
20For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it, in hope
21that the creation itself also will be set free from its slavery to corruption into the freedom of the glory of the children of God.
22For we know that the whole creation groans and suffers the pains of childbirth together until now.
23And not only this, but also we ourselves, having the first fruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our body.
24For in hope we have been saved, but hope that is seen is not hope; for who hopes for what he already sees?
25But if we hope for what we do not see, with perseverance we wait eagerly for it.
I do not deny Paul and the Scripture in context, whatsoever.
I am reasoning that where with God's help, there is with the use of theology, philosophy and other intellectual and practical, reasonable means ways of alleviating the problem of evil and suffering in the present realm, to contentment and/or blessing; this is preferable for those in the Church along with the Biblical hope of everlasting/eternal life, to an overly-spiritualized approach which often does not seriously deal with serious temporal issues in order to perhaps find solutions.
The philosophical concept that 'any human repentance will have to be matched by God is presented.'
It has God philosophically and theologically being placed in the docks. The idea of God being in the docks was a criticism of theodicy work from the internal, Wales reviewer, a Roman Catholic philosopher of religion at my PhD Viva. In agreement I do not think God belongs in the docks.
There is historical religious history from Scripture, both the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament that presents God directly and implied as eternal and infinite, existing prior to divine creation of matter in Genesis 1. God has sovereign, providential control. God repeatedly in Scripture claims to be holy as in Exodus 3. Humanity on the other hand is created, finite and sinful (Genesis, Romans, Galatians, Ephesians, Hebrews, James, 1 John, Revelation as some sources). Therefore God is not in need of repenting of how he deals with humanity.
God has also by the grace through faith (Ephesians 1-2) chosen and saved those in Christ from sin/sins for good works. A new resurrection body free from sin and suffering is the end for those in Christ (1 Corinthians 15, Revelation 20-22).
On the other hand, in fairness to critics of theism and Christianity, I, as someone that suffers with sin and finiteness as does all of humanity, can very much understand frustration with God, or a theistic concept. Life is not near what it could be as far as fulfillment for many in humanity. Life is often not one of peace and happiness for many. Seemingly many times God could do much more to assist persons.
Those in the Church do not act in very good ways to assist others, or love others at times. And for those that do have a significantly fulfilling, happy life, it ends in death. At times evangelical answers for the problem of evil and suffering are overly-spiritualized and simplistic. Overly-spiritualized as in downplaying the importance of present life in favour of the next life and realm.
The importance of the next realm and everlasting/eternal life in contrast to this present temporal realm does have its Biblical foundation as can be seen in the writings of the Apostles and words of Christ.
Example
New American Standard Bible
Romans 8: 18-25
18For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory that is to be revealed to us.
19For the anxious longing of the creation waits eagerly for the revealing of the sons of God.
20For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it, in hope
21that the creation itself also will be set free from its slavery to corruption into the freedom of the glory of the children of God.
22For we know that the whole creation groans and suffers the pains of childbirth together until now.
23And not only this, but also we ourselves, having the first fruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our body.
24For in hope we have been saved, but hope that is seen is not hope; for who hopes for what he already sees?
25But if we hope for what we do not see, with perseverance we wait eagerly for it.
I do not deny Paul and the Scripture in context, whatsoever.
I am reasoning that where with God's help, there is with the use of theology, philosophy and other intellectual and practical, reasonable means ways of alleviating the problem of evil and suffering in the present realm, to contentment and/or blessing; this is preferable for those in the Church along with the Biblical hope of everlasting/eternal life, to an overly-spiritualized approach which often does not seriously deal with serious temporal issues in order to perhaps find solutions.
Bibliography additional
CAIRD, GEORGE B. (1977) Paul's Letters from Prison Paperback, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
CALVIN, JOHN (1539)(1998) The Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book II, Translated by Henry Beveridge, Grand Rapids, The Christian Classic Ethereal Library, Wheaton College.
CALVIN, JOHN (1539)(1998) The Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book IV, Translated by Henry Beveridge, Grand Rapids, The Christian Classic Ethereal Library, Wheaton College.
CALVIN, JOHN (1543)(1996) The Bondage and Liberation of the Will, Translated by G.I. Davies, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House.
COURSON, JON (2005) Application Commentary, Thomas Nelson, Nashville.
CRANFIELD, C.E.B. (1992) Romans: A Shorter Commentary, Grand Rapids, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.
ELWELL, WALTER AND YARBROUGH, ROBERT W., Third Edition (2013) Encountering The New Testament, Grand Rapids, Baker Academic.
FOULKES, FRANCIS (1989) Ephesians, Grand Rapids, Inter-Varsity Press.
GUNDRY, ROBERT (1981) A Survey of the New Testament, Grand Rapids, Zondervan.
LIGHTFOOT, JOHN B. (1993) The Destination of the Epistle to the Ephesians in Biblical Essays, New York, Macmillan.
MOUNCE, ROBERT H. (1990) The Book of Revelation, Grand Rapids, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.
MOUNCE, ROBERT H. (1995) The New American Commentary: Romans, Nashville, Broadman & Holman Publishers.
SHEDD, WILLIAM G.T. (1874-1890)(1980) Dogmatic Theology, Volume 1, Nashville, Thomas Nelson Publishers.
SHEDD, WILLIAM G.T. (1874-1890)(1980) Dogmatic Theology, Volume 2, Nashville, Thomas Nelson Publishers.
If God doesn't belong in the docks, there are going to be some disappointed fishermen.
ReplyDeleteWell there were the disciples...
ReplyDeleteEither way, you can t expect to make a living that can be
ReplyDeletehard to find.
Yes, making cash is easy according to the web copywriters...
ReplyDeleteA Pole, a Black, a Muslim and a Brit were walking together on a beach when
ReplyDeletethe Black stumbled over a bottle in the sand.
He picked up the bottle, rubbed the sand off it, and a Genie appeared.
" I can only grant four wishes." the Genie said. "Since there are four of
you, you may have a wish apiece."
Pointing at the Black, he said, "Since you found the bottle, you may have
the first wish."
The Black studied for a moment then said, "I wish for a fleet of ships so
that I can gather all my people and take them back to our homeland, Africa."
Poof! It was done! Hundreds of ships appeared on the skyline .
The Pole said, "I wish for enough Range Rovers to take all my people back to
our homeland, Poland!"
Poof! It was done! Row after row of Range Rovers appeared on the beach.
The Muslim said, "I wish for ten thousand camels to take all of my people
away from this horrible country loaded with infidels so we can live in peace
in Muslim
countries”
Poof! It was done! Ten thousand camels suddenly appeared on the beach.
Turning to the Brit , the Genie asked, "And what is your wish?
The Brit watched as the loaded Range Rovers began moving toward the
Channel, then looked out to sea and watched the loaded ships sailing out
into the sunset, then he looked at all of the Muslims getting on top of the
camels and riding off.
The Brit said , "Just give me a Pint. It doesn't get any better than this!"
Another sign of the times...
ReplyDeleteHow to be a prick and get away with it
ReplyDeleteYes, experts @ that.com
ReplyDeleteAnother thought provoking article Dr. Murray, I'm wondering can finite people influence the infinite?
ReplyDelete-Curly Curious-
Interesting points throughout this article like over simplifying our existence here in this world...
ReplyDelete-Points to Ponder-
'Anonymous said...
ReplyDeleteAnother thought provoking article Dr. Murray, I'm wondering can finite people influence the infinite?
-Curly Curious-'
Excellent question.
In one sense yes, as the finite person can pray to the infinite God and God can move.
On the other hand, God as first cause causes and wills all things by perfect motives. Significant human freedom cannot be forced or coerced.
Therefore God causes secondary thoughts, acts and actions, including human.
'Anonymous said...
ReplyDeleteInteresting points throughout this article like over simplifying our existence here in this world...
-Points to Ponder-'
Yes, a serious issue.
Cheers
I have been ƅrowsing on-line mοre thɑn three hours as of late,
ReplyDeletebut I never discovered any interesting article like yours.
It is beautiful value enough for me. Iո my view, if all website owneгs and bloggers made just
right сontent as you probably did, the net wil be
much more helpful than ever Ьefore.
Hey!
ReplyDeleteThanks for reading me, i would like to share with you an impressive technique to find in 2 clicks, profitable keywords.
The Best Seo keywords with great search volume, low competiton and good ppc.
Let me Introduce you Secockpit, read my case of study here: http://topseosoft.com/seo-case-study-and-affiliation
I already ranked 2 niche site in google within 1 week!
Don't trust me! Read my case of study and try this amazing tools.
http://topseosoft.com/go/secockpit
Nominated Best seo tools 2013 from SearchEngineLand!
To your success! Manu
Working with another very fine Sikh senior partner and not the usual that trains me. This one is not as humorous, although he is afraid his turban might get wet on the exterior patrol.
ReplyDeleteHe actually wears the yellow heavy coat we have, instead of the standard dress jacket on the exterior...
I chuckle...well he is from Afghanistan where it is warmer.
He does have a good point that we are wearing dress shoes...
1000 years Euro history
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteI would rather pay a bit more to ensure that I will be receiving good quality.
Well then avoid the web marketers, or at least be extremely careful...
ReplyDeleteHis name was Fleming, and he was a poor Scottish
ReplyDeletefarmer. One day, while trying to make a living for his family, he heard a
cry for help coming from a nearby bog. He dropped his tools and ran to the
bog.
There, mired to his waist in black muck, was a
terrified boy, screaming and struggling to free himself. Farmer Fleming
saved the lad from what could have been a slow and terrifying death
The next day, a fancy carriage pulled up to the
Scotsman's sparse surroundings. An elegantly dressed nobleman stepped out
and introduced himself as the father of the boy Farmer Fleming had saved.
'I want to repay you,' said the nobleman. 'You saved
my son's life.'
'No, I can't accept payment for what I did,' the
Scottish farmer replied waving off the offer. At that moment, the farmer's
own son came to the door of the family hovel.
'Is that your son?' the nobleman asked.
'Yes,' the farmer replied proudly.
'I'll make you a deal. Let me provide him with the
level of education my own son will enjoy. If the lad is anything like his
father, he'll no doubt grow to be a man we both will be proud of.' And that
he did.
Farmer Fleming's son attended the very best schools
and in time, graduated from St. Mary's Hospital Medical School in London,
and went on to become known throughout the world as the noted Sir Alexander
Fleming, the discoverer of Penicillin.
Years afterward, the same nobleman's son who was
saved from the bog was stricken with pneumonia.
What saved his life this time? Penicillin.
The name of the nobleman? Lord Randolph Churchill ..
His son's name? Sir Winston Churchill.
Someone once said: What goes around comes around.
Work like you don't need the money.
Love like you've never been hurt.
Dance like nobody's watching.
Sing like nobody's listening.
Live like it's Heaven on Earth.
GOOD CATHOLIC JOKE
ReplyDeleteTwo nuns are ordered to paint a room in the convent, with a warning from the Mother Superior not to get even a drop of paint on their habits.
After conferring about this, the two nuns decide to lock the door of the room, strip off their habits, and paint naked...
In the middle of the project, there's a knock at the door. "Who is it?" calls one of the nuns. "Blind man," replies a voice from the other side of the door. The two nuns look at each other and shrug, both deciding that no harm can come from letting a blind man into the room. They open the door.
"Nice boobs," says the man. "Where do you want the blinds?"
My interest in Nuns=None.
ReplyDeleteIf Quebec should decide to hold a referendum and the Quebecois vote for leaving Canada, the fun starts.
ReplyDeleteAboriginals will refuse to give up their traditional territory.
The St. Lawrence Seaway is jointly owned by Canada and the United States; Quebec has no claim to the lands set aside for the Seaway.
Montreal is an island in the St. Lawrence and may not be part of a new Quebec.
All federal facilities (and English speaking employees) in Quebec would have to relocate.
Air Canada could not continue maintenance operations in a foreign nation.
The Port of Montreal would wither as Canadian companies would have to find an Canadian location for imports and exports.
Airlines would cease landing in Quebec until they could negotiate landing rights with the new nation.
The Canada Space Agency could move from Saint-Hubert to Calgary.
Federally licensed financial institutions (all banks, for example) could no longer operate in Quebec.
Bilingual courts and a bilingual federal civil service would be history.
The Official Languages Act would be history.
Thousands of translators we pay for would be out of work.
We would have 78 fewer Members of Parliament to pay for.
We would have 24 fewer Senators to pay for.
The NDP would lose 57 seats including Mulcair’s;
The Liberal would lose 8 seats including Trudeau’s.
The Conservative party’s majority would increase from 52% to 67%.
We would save about $20 billion annually in federal transfer payments - which could be used to pay down the federal debt.
We could save another $543 million in funds currently earmarked for bridges over the St. Lawrence and in and out of Montreal.
We would no longer support Bombardier.
All military aircraft work contracted by Canada would have to leave Quebec.
Goodbye to the CBC French language networks.
I can't think of any good reasons not to cheer them on. Go Pauline Marois, go take Quebec out of confederation - and soon.
I suspect there would be other reprecussions but I have become
fed up with la belle province...
Quebec sovereignty is at about 30% according to recent polls I looked at, about the same as Scottish independence.
ReplyDeleteThirty % from what I gather is standard; rather what is happening is the PQ may win the Provincial election instead of the Liberals.
If Quebec did separate they would risk having Montreal separate and stay in Canada. Devastating as the largest city. Quebec would be dead, virtually, as a main power. It would be like the Maritimes.
Even if Quebec separates there is likely to be some kind of political union with Canada, similar to the EU.
Early 20th C, Ireland Rep. separates from the UK but they are now both part of the EU with an EU passport. From my understanding, everyone born in Northern Ireland is a citizen of the UK, Ireland and EU.
I doubt Quebec would gain much autonomy through separation. They already have own justice system and pensions. To me this is emotionalism extreme.
$7k in 7 Days Challenge ( are you ready for success? )
ReplyDeleteCollect Your Earnings Now! ($4,651.87)
ReplyDeleteI need your help (Yes, you'll get paid)
ReplyDeleteYour cash for your referral
ReplyDeleteHi,
That's right! I have sent your bonus
for that referral that you sent.
>> Claim your bonus now
http://app.getresponse.com/click.html?x=a62b&lc=hlZiz&mc=Bx&s=y9CU8&u=w1x&y=S&
This bonus is only available for the next 24 hours,
so claim it now
>> Claim your bonus now
'Anonymous said...
ReplyDelete$7k in 7 Days Challenge ( are you ready for success? )'
That could be my cost...
Claim cash bogus...
ReplyDelete'Anonymous said...
ReplyDeleteCollect Your Earnings Now! ($4,651.87)'
Fiction writer you are...