Taste and See that The Lord is Good.


Suggest a Place of Worship


website by BKTHD

Instead of writing the obligatory blogger’s Thanksgiving post about all the things I’m grateful for, a few days ago I chose to write about the Christianity blues.  That stinkin’ adversary seemed to be working over-time, desperately trying to convince me that God didn’t really have a personal interest in my life.  That He wasn’t a loving, intimate God who deeply cared about the situations I’m faced with on a daily basis.  Since I shared the Christianity blah’s with the online world, I thought it only appropriate to express how I’m feeling today.  The holiday spirit has finally caught up to me.  I’ve tasted. I’ve seen. And the Lord is good.  (Psalm 34)

A few days ago I went to my sister’s house for Thanksgiving where my entire family gathered together.  In my opinion, it was one of the best Turkey Days I’ve had in years.  First off, it was the first one in over a decade where I had actually been completely sober so I can remember every conversation we had, a big bonus.  We also had two beautiful babies recently added to our crew, one with a very large dome that still has me smiling even days after I’ve left him, something to be truly grateful for.  And finally, we talked a lot about this God character that has seemed to insert Himself into our lives a whole lot more here recently. 

We talked about the Sabbath and whether it mattered to God which day we kept holy, we talked about predestination and the idea that God picks some of us for heaven, while leaving others destined for eternal hell fire, putting tradition over the Bible, whether prayers are meaningless because God has already chosen the course of our lives or whether he wants/appreciates them, and we talked about the meaning and process of sanctification.  There were a lot of “what if” scenarios.  My family likes those.  Things like, “what if I was a Christian and I was about to rob a bank and I died in a car crash on the way, do I go to heaven?”  “What if I grow up in a foreign land and never hear about Jesus do I go to heaven?”What if God picks me for heaven but destines my husband for hell, would I even want to serve that God anymore?”

To me, it was a great debate.  I admit, when I got in the car I did ask God to forgive me for being so argumentative with my brother Jon about Calvin's theology.  The idea that God doesn't listen to my prayers or want a relationship with me because He's soverign just bugs me, but that doesn't mean I need to yell at him about it. I struggle with the need to be right so of course we both fought to get the last word in.  Add the fact that us crazy Italians all scream over one another in an attempt to be heard and you can see why I felt compelled to repent.  I just don't picture Jesus sharing the Gospel by screaming at the top of his lungs about how great the Father is.   I do wonder though what's worse, arguing about my thoughts on God or just remaining silent when I hear statements such as, “God destines some people to hell to magnify His glory.” 

Inevitably, over the course of the holiday weekend, I ended up getting the dreaded early 30’s with no kids question…. “So, Jess…when are those babies coming?”  It was a fair question, and as my sister pointed out, I’m not getting any younger.  It did get me thinking again about having children.

Since the year is coming to an end and so is this project, I couldn’t help but think about what the New Year was going to bring my way.  And so, I spent the next several days fervently praying for God to give me some guidance.  Something I don’t do often.  Sure, I pray about 4 or 5 times a day for the people and situations in my life.  I pray at night, in the morning, before I eat, and while driving, the normal times.  But I’m talking about that pleading prayer; hands clasped and on my knees.  That kind where your whole body is just lifted up by the Spirit of God and you can feel Him, the type of prayer where you just KNOW He’s holding you close. 

First, I thanked Him for the interest my family has shown in knowing Him more fully.  Then, I spent a good deal of time thanking Him for my husband.  Patrick has been so incredibly supportive of my Christian walk that I am overwhelmed by the love he’s shown me.  For someone who doesn’t read the Bible every day or spend much time in prayer, my husband certainly loves like a faithful Christian.  I then brought before the Lord my request.  I asked that He reveal to me the next steps in my life.  Is it children, God?  Then I will grow a family who walks in Your ways.  Is it a job?  Then show me one that glorifies You and I will take those paychecks and grow your Kingdom.  Should I start a new blog project?  Do missionary work?  Look to do Bible studies with others?  Whether it’s serve just one person or tell my testimony to millions, Lord transform my heart and make it one with Christ so I may do Your will on earth. I literally begged, “Please, Lord, lead me to what You’d have me doI humbly give my life to you.  Do as you wish.” 

I sat there quietly praying on my knees and slowly, tears of joy began to stream down my face and great emotion overcame me.  I pictured myself kneeling at the foot of the cross.  I felt such gratitude for the sacrifice that He made that I wept with gladness. The words, “These are the prayers that are sweet to my ears” gently spoke to my heart.  I remained in kneeling position and sat without thought, marinating in the Spirit.  I didn’t analyze what that statement meant or ponder where it was coming from.  Instead, I sat in silence, and allowed the love of God to fill me.  A few moments later I offered up a joke to God. “I knew I was right about You appreciating our prayers!” 

Within 48 hours of pleading with God that His will be done through me, I believe He has already started to open doors for me. (No Mom, sorry. I’m not pregnant.)

I am however hungry to share the love of Christ with the people I meet.  I would even use the phrase, I am burdened to do so.  I think that’s what a calling must feel like.  It’s almost as though if I don’t share with people the Good News that God won’t give me rest until I say “Yes” to doing so.  It makes me think of that scene from Ghost where Patrick Swayze won’t stop singing the Henry the 8th song to Whoopie Goldberg until she does what he asks.  If you don’t get that reference, it’s one of those had to be there things…..

So today Christianity doesn’t stink.  Actually, today it’s better than it’s ever been before.  I guess God rewards faith and obedience after all. 

I am moving forward with whatever door He opens for me next.  Even though I don’t know where I’m headed, I’m goin’ places.  I’m going to let Him guide my steps as I put one foot in front of the other and just keep on walking.  My soul is truly boasting in the Lord. And oh man, that’s just something to be so incredibly thankful for.  To get what I'm experiencing today, read Psalm 34.  David has a way of saying it much better than I do.




Share this post


  • Tony York

    Tony York November 30, 2010

    Psalm 34 is a good one.

    Taste goes beyond the act of eating. It implies experiencing that which is being consumed.  I am as guilty as the next when it comes to sometimes just going through the motions and forgetting to experience (taste) Him.

  • Nicole Unice

    Nicole Unice November 30, 2010

    I love this post. Pleading before the Lord—really lifting up a whole life, a contrite heart—always works for me. smile I hope we can get coffee soon!

  • Dave VT

    Dave VT December 01, 2010

    For your ongoing conversation with your brother, Luke 13:34 …

    “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, killing the prophets and stoning those who are sent to you! How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you would not!” (Lk 13:34).

    Christ is saying that he himself, God, would gather all his children to be saved, but some choose not to come to him.  Free will, from the lips of Jesus.

    Here is a good page w/ more verses on free will: http://www.brethrenonline.org/articles/FREEWILL.HTM

    I love Tony’s insight: “[taste] implies experiencing that which is being consumed.”  And Psalm 34, which includes the line, “Oh, taste and see that the LORD is good!”  Again, we come back to the Eucharist.  Psalm 34 prefigures Christ and the Eucharist.  Tony’s insight could be unpacked for a hundred years.  If the Eucharist is the real presence of Jesus Christ, what does it mean to experience that which is being consumed?

  • Scott

    Scott December 01, 2010

    I am glad to see the change.

    I have not understood the Calvin followship. There many different types of Calvin theology (Lapsarianism, anyone?). And the problem is that this theology takes out “Whosoever.”

    Romans 10:13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.

    Revelation 22:17 And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely.

    John Calvin also did not like opposition and arranged for the deaths of some who did oppose him. And yet, people still want to follow his teachings. To me, that is like taking dog care lessons from Michael Vick.

  • Jessica

    Jessica December 01, 2010

    Tony, you know it’s not until I have a real “taste” of God that I realize how much I’ve been going through the motions. I think these experiences remind me of how critical it is to life out my faith and not just discuss it.  It’s an experience.

    Hi Nicole-I didn’t miss that post on your blog about the book stuff did I?  I didn’t see it.  I’m not rushing you to get to writing, just wanted to make sure I didn’t miss it!

    Dave, I’m curious about something.  If the Pope came forward tomorrow and said, “Hey everybody, we were wrong about the Eucharist.  It’s not really the blood and body of Jesus physically, but we’re going to take it the same way we have.  And we’re going to do this to remember our Lord and Saviour and the sacrifice He made”  Do you believe that tradition would still have the same significance for you? I’m curious.

    Scott, I love the Michael Vick reference.  And no.  No I would not being taking dog obedience training from him:) Whenever you make references about Calvin it makes me want to take a class on the reformation.  I know so little about it and I really should learn more.

  • Dave VT

    Dave VT December 01, 2010

    Since the Apostles, the Church has taught that the Eucharist is the body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ.  The real presence of Christ in the Eucharist is, and always has been, infallibly defined.  Frankly, the scenario you propose is impossible.  No Pope could ever do what you suggest, the theological hurdles are just too high. 

    First, recall that the Pope would have to be issuing an official infallible teaching of the Church to “change” the teaching on the Eucharist.  Recall also that Pope does not issue infallible teachings “off the cuff”.  Part of the way you can recognize a teaching as infallible is that it is made after prayerful contemplation in communion w/ the bishops.  So to do what you suggest the Pope would have to tell the Bishops he was contemplating such a teaching, draft up some official document or statement on the teaching, and then get it passed a “review” by the Bishops.  That is just the first obstacle I see, but obviously your question is not meant to illicit a long theoretical response on the scope and limits of infallibility.  However, for you to understand my answer it is necessary to reiterate that infallibility does not attach to every passing thought or speculative statement of the Pope.  Remember, infallibility is actually a rather narrow charism.

    If the Pope came out and said that the Eucharist was only a symbol it would not change my belief in the real presence one bit.  I came to my belief in the real presence gradually both on my own and with the guidance of the Church.  The real presence is a mystery and a miracle, it is hard to understand.  I was blessed by God to accept the teaching of the real presence early on, even without fully understanding it (and by no means do I mean to imply that I truly fully understand it now).  As my faith has grown I have been further blessed come to the profound (albeit partial) realization of what the real presence means.  There is always more to unlock.  Some might suggest that acceptance without understanding was false.  Naturally, I would disagree.  A child accepts what its parents tell them with understanding - that does not mean what the parent has explained is false, only that the child was still too young to comprehend the complexities of the truth.  We of course, are all God’s children, just as the child grows in understanding so does our spirituality and understanding of the mysteries of Christianity.

    So if the Pope were to say such a thing I know that it would be quickly shown that the statement was made in error.  My faith is in God, not the Pope.  That being said, my faith in God also shows me clearly that the Pope holds a special place in God’s plan of salvation.  The Pope guards and protects the Gospel and teaches it anew to each generation.  Really, the question you have asked me is in truth a question for you. Which of the many Churches you have visited was NOT founded by a fallible man on their reinterpretation of some tenet of the faith?

  • Jessica

    Jessica December 01, 2010

    I think all the churches were built on fallible men.  Including the Catholic one.  I believe the bride of Christ is those who obey the doctrine of God and have the testimony of Jesus Christ. Not a church denomination.

    And Dave, I asked about the Eucharist because I’m fascinated by it and as you can read in my post…I like “what if” questions:)  What I was really trying to get at was whether or not someones faith in Jesus presence in the Eucharist changed whether He was literally present in it or not?  Meaning, if I took that same bread and wine believed it was just a cracker and shot of alcohol, would it still be his flesh and blood or must I believe it for it to actually be it?

  • Scott

    Scott December 01, 2010

    A good place to start is Foxe’s Book of Martyrs. We have been watching a series of videos at church on church history and looking at Baptist lineage. Sadly, it is fraught with martyrs and a Trail of Blood…

    The Reformation is part of what helped bring the world out of the Dark Ages. The printing press accelerated things because God’s Word was no longer suppressed by those in power.

  • Dave VT

    Dave VT December 01, 2010

    Of course all Churches are built on fallible men, including the Catholic Church, my question is if they are founded on fallible teaching.

    Is God real even if the atheist down the street doesn’t believe?  I Jesus the Messiah even if the Jews down the street don’t acknowledge him?  So it is with the Eucharist.

    See for yourself: http://www.ucatholic.com/videos/the-miracle-of-lanciano/

  • Dave VT

    Dave VT December 01, 2010

    On Foxe’s Book of Martyrs:
    When Foxe treats of his own times his work is of greater value as it contains many documents and is but largely based on the reports of eyewitnesses; but he sometimes dishonesty mutilates his documents and is quite untrustworthy in his treatment of evidence. He was criticized in his own day by Catholics such as Harpsfield and Father Parsons and by practically all serious ecclesiastical historians.  http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02681a.htm


    I also found that the famous Book of Martyrs, written by John Foxe, a sixteenth-century apostate Catholic, was historically inaccurate. Many of the “martyrs” in the reign of Mary Tudor were unorthodox and would have been burned in the reign of Protestant Queen Elizabeth. Indeed, Foxe supported a regime that tortured and killed Catholics who simply wanted to live in the faith of their ancestors. He also supported a regime that burned Evangelical Christians such as Baptists! It was Protestant Christians who had persecuted the Puritan Pilgrim Fathers of seventeenth-century England, and that group in turn, on settling in America, had persecuted fellow Bible believers!  http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1998/9803conv.asp


    The Inquisition as depicted in Reformation anti-Catholic propaganda is perhaps the most persistent image of Catholicism, appearing in everything from later editions of John Fox’s Book of Martyrs to Edgar Allen Poe’s “The Pit and the Pendulum” to D.W. Griffith’s film Intolerance.

    Though the rise of secular historical studies in the late nineteenth century began to dismiss this popular caricature of the Inquisition, not until the second half of the twentieth century did serious historical study show the complicated and diverse nature of the Inquisition from country to country and century to century. Unfortunately, the Catholic urban legend of the Inquisition, defined in Reformation and post-Reformation polemics as a universal Catholic machinery of repression centered in Rome, has remained a part of the normal cultural and political language of today.  http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2007/0705tbt.asp

  • Scott

    Scott December 01, 2010

    Dave stated: “Many of the “martyrs” in the reign of Mary Tudor were unorthodox and would have been burned in the reign of Protestant Queen Elizabeth.”

    What troubles me is the statement that people would have been burned under either reign—as if that justifies the burnings. Now I am sure Dave does not condone burnings, however, it is an odd way to state it.

    The Roman Catholic church was in power during the Inquisition and the center was not only Rome, but also Spain. Naturally, the Catholic church and its scholars are not going to like Foxe’s Book of Martyrs because they are not positively portrayed in it.

    The Inquisition is a fact of history. It was directed by the RCC and they were involved in the deaths—both directly, and indirectly (threats of excommunication, promises of indulgences, etc). The RCC tried to whitewash their involvement (“serious historical study”) a few years ago, but the truth cannot be hid.

  • Dave VT

    Dave VT December 01, 2010

    Just for the record those statements are quotes other people that read the book, including a devout Protestant that learned he had been mislead.

    The fact is Foxe’s Book of Martyrs is no longer even considered bad scholarship.  It’s the kook web site of its time, closer to the “Daily Kos” than actual scholarship.

    If fact, that provides an excellent parallel.  When people have an agenda to push they can be tempted to skew the facts.  To embellish or to omit relevant information. That is what fringe web sites do today to try and demonize their opponents.  If an author willing misinterprets facts or misleads his audience on a subject should trust the on that subject at all?  Would you go to the Daily Kos to find an honest and fair look at Sarah Palin?

    You seem to focus a lot on the idea that if your actions possibly led to the death of any person that your organization is forever stained.  Do you reject the U.S. Government in this manner?  The United Nations?  Are the Indian tribes evil b/c they killed settlers?  What about a pharmaceutical company that makes a medication to cure illness but it’s side effects kill 5% of users?  What if they said it was 5% but it really was 20%.  Can you ever buy another medication from them?  People are responsible for their actions, the Catholic Church more so than others.  A proposition we happily accept but the inquisition was not theology.  It was not teaching of the faith. 

    Modern scholarship, mostly by secular historians, put the inquisition (and the Crusades) in it proper historical context.  Just go to a Catholic website and learn about how you may have been mislead.  If you were mislead about this, what else might have you been mislead about?  You might reject the books and website that offer a different perspective and that is fine but failure to investigate only does yourself a disservice.

  • Jessica

    Jessica December 01, 2010

    Hey Dave,

    That’s interesting.  See I was under the impression that the Eucharist was only seen as the physical blood and body when it was blessed by a priest and taken by a catholic who believes it is what they believe it is.  So for instance, I went and took communion at a Celtic Episcopalian service the other day.  I had assumed that a Catholic would say that the presence of Christ wasn’t in it because it wasn’t blessed by a priest and I didn’t believe it was anything other than bread and wine.  But if I’m understanding you correctly-I don’t need to believe it in order for it to be.  The taking of communion is the blood and body of Christ regardless, right?

  • Dave VT

    Dave VT December 01, 2010

    The Eucharist once consecrated is the body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ regardless of what the person receiving it believes.

    However, only a Priest with valid Holy Orders can consecrate the Eucharist.  Valid Holy Orders come from valid Apostolic succession.  I do not think the Priests in the Celtic Episcopalian Church have valid Holy Orders.  It is my understanding that unfortunately no Protestant Church maintains valid Apostolic succession.  It is my further understanding; that this is b/c Martin Luther purposefully broke the line of Apostolic Succession when the Bishops of his day, that were sympathetic to him, would not go as far as he wanted.  (However, I must admit, that this is one point I have not done sufficient research on and I could be wrong as to exactly how, why and when the line was broken).  Merely disagreeing with the Church does not end Apostolic succession.  For example, Greek Orthodox Church you went to is in Schisim with the Roman Catholic Church but maintains valid succession.

    That being said, the Catholic Church does not exclude the possibility that a sincere Protestant pastor, who believes in the real presence, could validly consecrate the Eucharist.  God can work outside the normal confines of the sacraments if he so chooses.  However, unless a miracle occurs in that situation, one would never know this side of heaven if the bread and wine was transubstantiated.  You could have sincere and honest faith that it was but not certainty.  Certainty is one of the great gifts Christ gives believers through the Church.

  • Tony York

    Tony York December 02, 2010

    Good thing I am a priest:

    But you are A CHOSEN RACE, A royal PRIESTHOOD, A HOLY NATION, A PEOPLE FOR God’s OWN POSSESSION, so that you may proclaim the excellencies of Him who has called you out of darkness into His marvelous light;

  • Dave VT

    Dave VT December 02, 2010

    Indeed Tony, you are a Priest.  As am I and Jess and all Christians.  This is known as the Universal Priesthood. 

    And Hebrews 7:22–25 says:

    “This makes Jesus the surety of a better covenant. The former priests were many in number, because they were prevented by death from continuing in office; but he holds his priesthood permanently, because he continues for ever. Consequently he is able for all time to save those who draw near to God through him, since he always lives to make intercession for them”.  So this text tells us that Christ is our Priest and intercessor before the Father.

    Coupled it with 1 Timothy 2:5, which says, “For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.” (Intercessor and mediator are synonymous.)  A priest, by definition, is a mediator between God and men.  So since Christ is our one, unique priest and intercessor how are we also part of a Universal Priesthood?

    The passage you quote, 1 Peter 2: 9 indicates that all Christians are priests—but says nothing about the existence of a Ministerial priesthood. Indeed, the ordained ministers of the New Covenant are identified seperately as apostles (cf. Eph. 4:11), presbyters (cf. Jas 5:14), bishops (cf. 1 Tm 3:1), and deacons (cf. 1 Tm 3:8ff).  In fact 1 Peter is alluding back to the Old Testament, where all the Israelites shared the universal priesthood (Exodus 19:6).  In the Old Testament, the Levites held the ministerial priesthood to intercede between God and his chosen people. 

    As we know, the covenant of the Old Testament is perfected in the New.  At the last supper Jesus said “Do this in memory of me”.  This is a command to perform a chief function of a Priest - offer sacrifice.  After the Resurrection, Jesus appears to the apostles and says to them: “‘Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I send you.’ And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, ‘Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained’” (Jn 20:21-23).  Again this is another Priestly role to intercede between God and Man for the forgiveness of sins.

    There are other examples but the import of the entirely of scripture is clear.  In the Old Testament we have God, a Ministerial Priesthood of the Levite tribe and the Universal Priesthood of the people of Israel.  In the New Testament we have paradigm perfected: the God-man Jesus as the High Priest, the Ministerial Priesthood of the Apostles, Bishops and Deacons, and the Universal Priesthood of the believers.

  • Scott

    Scott December 02, 2010

    Again, The RCC has an axe to grind against Foxe’s Book of Martyrs because of the portrayal of the RCC.
    “Foxe based his accounts of martyrs before the early modern period on previous writers, including Eusebius, Bede, Matthew Paris, and many others; and his accounts of these early events were no more accurate than his sources.

    Foxe’s great contribution, however, was his compilation of the English martyrs from the period of the Lollards through the persecution of Mary I. Here Foxe had primary sources of all kinds to draw on: episcopal registers, reports of trials, and the testimony of eyewitnesses, a remarkable range of sources for English historical writing of the period.[20]

    Nevertheless, Foxe often treated this material casually, and any reader “must be prepared to meet plenty of small errors and inconsistencies.”[21] Furthermore, Foxe did not hold to later notions of neutrality or objectivity. He made unambiguous side glosses on his text, such as “Mark the apish pageants of these popelings” and “This answer smelleth of forging and crafty packing.”[22]

    The material contained in the work is generally accurate, although selectively presented. Sometimes he copied documents verbatim; sometimes he adapted them to his own use. Although both he and his contemporary readers were more credulous than most moderns, Foxe presented “lifelike and vivid pictures of the manners and feelings of the day, full of details that could never have been invented by a forger.”[23] Foxe’s method of using his sources “proclaims the honest man, the sincere seeker after truth.”[24]

    For the English Church, Foxe’s book remains a fundamental witness to the sufferings of faithful Christians at the hands of the anti-Protestant Roman Catholic authorities and to the miracle of their endurance unto death, sustained and comforted by the faith to which they bore living witness as martyrs. Foxe emphasizes the right of English people to hear or read the Holy Scripture in their own language and receive its message directly rather than as mediated through a priesthood. The valour of the martyrs in the face of persecution became a component of English identity.

    Foxe is more accurate when dealing with events during his own time, and his book is in no sense an impartial account of the period. Yet, although the 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica accused Foxe of “wilful falsification of evidence,” J. F. Mozley maintains that Foxe preserves a high standard of honesty; and the 2009 Encyclopædia Britannica notes that Foxe’s work is “factually detailed and preserves much firsthand material on the English Reformation unobtainable elsewhere.”[25]

    Roman Catholics consider Foxe a significant source of English anti-Catholicism, charging among other objections to the work, that the treatment of martyrdoms under Mary ignores contemporary mingling of political and religious motives—for instance, ignoring the possibility that some victims may have intrigued to remove Mary from the throne.[26] In fact, as David Loades has noted, Foxe’s history of the political situation is “remarkably objective. He makes no attempt to make martyrs out of Wyatt and his followers, or anyone else who was executed for treason, except George Eagles, who he describes as falsely accused.”[27]”

    The citations are from his biography from 1940 by Mozley.

    Foxe’s Book of Martyrs is closer to history than what you are reading, Dave. I have looked at the RCC side of things for a long time. What I am finding in these discussions with you, Dave is that your knowledge of history is lacking.

    If the Inquisition did not involve theology, then why were so many papal bulls written? Why the emphasis by the RCC to get people to follow their beliefs or suffer on the rack, or be burned at the stake or any other number of inhumane deaths?

    And has there been an apology or admittance of guilt or repentance?

  • Dave VT

    Dave VT December 02, 2010

    So the best you can do is a 100 year old reviews that say Foxe was “casual”, “selectively presented
    ” and “adapted to his own use”, that ‘not neutral or objective’.  Basically confirming exaclty what I said.  But hey, it’s a good read!

    The theology comment is directed to the point that inquisition was not teaching theology or the gospel.  Papel bulls have nothing to do with infalibility.

    The only thing missing from my knowledge of history is bias.  I have been the first to acknowledge the mistakes of the all to human sinners that make up the Church.

    Finally, you claim to have looked at the “Catholic side of things for a long time.”  But even a simple Google search has shown pulls up Papal apologies for the inquisition.  Yet it seems you didn’t know that.  Perhaps, like Foxe, you are just “selectively presenting” things for your own purpose.  I guess that is OK, as long as it is a good read.

  • Scott

    Scott December 02, 2010

    I repeat my previous paragraph, Dave.
    Foxe is more accurate when dealing with events during his own time, and his book is in no sense an impartial account of the period. Yet, although the 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica accused Foxe of “wilful falsification of evidence,” J. F. Mozley maintains that Foxe preserves a high standard of honesty; and the 2009 Encyclopædia Britannica notes that Foxe’s work is “factually detailed and preserves much firsthand material on the English Reformation unobtainable elsewhere.”[25]
    2009 Encyclopedia Britannica. 1940 Biography by J.F. Mozley—hardly 100 years old.

    You are correct, The RCC did apologize. I had forgotten about the general apology in 2000 by JP2. And another one a few years later, after their commission claims the impact of the Inquisition was much less.

  • RobbieRamsey

    RobbieRamsey February 11, 2011

    I took 1 st loans when I was not very old and that helped me a lot. But, I need the financial loan as well.

  • NunezSOPHIA26

    NunezSOPHIA26 February 18, 2011

    A lot of college students choose the academic writing help. They act right, just because it can aid them very much!

  • AngelMays29

    AngelMays29 February 18, 2011

    There are different essay papers writing corporations that propose to buy essay papers. However, you should choose the most reliable one to get the best results!

  • StefanieGlover29

    StefanieGlover29 March 07, 2011

    The custom research papers created by distinguished writers, would give people an academic success. Hence it is valuable to buy essay editing service to achieve your goal, I guess.

  • BrittneyWilliams21

    BrittneyWilliams21 March 07, 2011

    I opine that people will make better their writing technique purchasing academic essay at buy research paper service. Because an experienced term papers writing service would be able to create online essays on every sphere of science.

Add Your Comment

Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.