:: Tears of the Moon ::

:: Saturday, September 27, 2003 ::

Your fic simply sucks

How many goddamn times do I have to tell you, politely, that your work simply sucks? The tenses are all wrong, the grammar's borderline, and the dialogue's stiff! Your characters don't know how to react, and you're waay too obvious when you said you wanted it to be angst.

Girl jilted at the altar. She's heartbroken, gets another job in another country.

So, who is this girl and why the hell is she HEARTBROKEN when she's jilted at the altar?!? Don't you have *any* self-worth? Any self-respect at all?

Fine. Your character's heartbroken. I'll give you that. But why? Was he the only guy who ever 'loved' you? (newsflash: he never did. He shirked at the last minute) What's the damn deal about the guy? Give me some justification for the 'angst' here. Not some pitying excuse for a broken girl.

Give me character death, give me a suicide. Give me dark and dangerous emotions. NOT, for the love of God, the cheesiest reason of them all: heartbreak. When you don't even give any reason, any backgrounder, as to the where, the why and the how. And it's not even frigging justified.

Fine. It's a first attempt, right? It's understandable. And, being the concerned friend that I am, I give feedback when she asked for it. I took out my red pen and started slashing: Tense usage, awful. Grammar, borderline. Dialogue, stiff. Style doesn't flow right. Plot, needs work.


I almost did a line by line of her first freaking chapter. Made me want to gouge my eyeballs to read 'has' and 'had' regarding one action in two consecutive sentences. It's an English teacher's nightmare. And, being the teacher that she is, I'm seriously wondering about the state of teacher's education in this country. Uncharitably, I'm going to have to say that she's a preschool teacher, after all. She talks to children and disabled kids. Not necessarily stimulating conversation, but hello. There are lots of examples of good writing out there, and all within buying range at your nearest bookstore.

And if you need help, go reread Dreams one more time.

Her main character's weak. As weak as Katrina in my mom's favorite nighttime soap where all she does is cry weepy tears for her jerk of a boyfriend. And that girl's supposed to be a law student! Back to topic.

Her main character's weak.

The dialogue's stiff and formal. For someone writing a story in the present time, the dialogue doesn't have the flow and rhythm of people talking in real life. You do talk to people, right? Real, normal people?

I can take all that shit. Write about it, fine. If you like it, love it, fine. I'm not one to tell people not to read it because it's awful. I'd rather they figure it out for themselves. Once I did that first feedback, I stopped.

Then she said she had her second chapter up. Wow. Second chapter? This, I gotta see.

Much to my dismay, her first chapter was pretty much still the same: introducing the girl as a moping weepy preschool teacher who'd been so devastated about her fiance's desertion (it's been months, mind you) that she starts the story with mild depression. Gimme something edgier, for the love of Bob. Suicidal thoughts. Thoughts of I'm not lovable. I'm no good. Something irredeemable about her ex-boyfriend: he emotionally put her down, he was a jerk, she was a pushover, he cheated on her.

No, the same ambiguous beginning, with (again) the almost-weeping, and thoughts of the ex-bf hastily put aside. Putting on the brave (weepy) face to work in another country (what, the Philippines not big enough for you?)

Tenses!
..And since it was a Saturday, it meant she has no work today..

Wrong word usage!

..while her slobbering little pet continued trying to baste her in her sleep..

Awkward and useless sentences!

..It’s been 4 months since she has settled down in New Zealand. She had Pepper for almost 3 months now. Pepper is an English Beagle with brown, black and white coat...

So freaking WHAT about the dog??

..“Okay! Okay! I’m sure if I declined to your request, you wouldn’t stop pestering me about it. But remember I am doing this for the children and our school. And not for anything else.”

It's just.. off. It just really is.

And, talk about introduction:

Continued from copy-pasted above:
..And she has kept her company in the single-room apartment she’s been renting in Auckland. Miranda Mitchells, who originally came from Brisbane, gave Pepper to Marae. Miranda was one of her co-workers in Little Feet Preschool. She has been her close friend ever since she came to Auckland. They have been working in Little Feet under the supervision of Mrs. Elizabeth Walters..

Robotic:
...Pouring the coffee into a mug, she then went to the kitchen cabinet to get a box of Cheerios. She then poured it over a bowl and put some milk on it. Sitting by the kitchen table, she started preparing her cup of coffee...

Pathetic:
..“Oh come on, Rae! It’s been almost a year since you even met a guy.” Those words suddenly hit her like a brick falling on her head. It was true. It had been a long time.

..Why do his memories still haunt me? A tear fell down on her cheek. Releasing her grip on the ring, she wiped the tear away from her face...

Yeah, yeah. Blah blah. Sure. He was the only mind-blowing sex you've had? He could do cartwheels and play fifteen instruments? What the HELL is so special about this bastard? You didn't say.

And I won't even get to the parts where she writes about Orlando Bloom.

Okay. She essentially ignored my suggestions. Which is fine, because everyone's entitled. I reread the (supposedly) revised first chapter (she revised it? REALLY? Where? On spaces? Made it double-spaced?)

But don't be surprised if I don't ever read the damn thing again. The problems aren't taken out, and she went with her instinct and did the same crime all over again on her second chapter. I couldn't read past the first paragraph of the first one, and I just skimmed on the second. So when she asked me to fb the second, I simply told her that my comments on the second are the same as my comments for the first.

What annoys the living daylights out of me is the way she bugs and bugs and bugs people to read her story, to read the updates, to ask for suggestions, etc.

1) I've READ the stupid story
2) I'm NOT interested in reading updates
3) There's Google for travel suggestions, things to do, itenerary, songs.
4) Use YOUR imagination, for crying out loud. It IS *your* story after all!

What amazes me at the same time is all the GLOWING reviews she gets: Great story! Can't wait for next one! Keep it up! SOOOooo good!

Hello?

Am I the ONLY one who's seeing this?

Apparently, not. But none of them are telling her about it. Well, someone did, and I love them for doing so.

I've been provoked beyond diplomacy here. I visited the (stupid) story again, and I read the sixth chapter (what a waste of bandwidth. SIXTH!) out of charity. Because of the debacle regarding her fifth one, I wanted to see if anything's changed. For the better, please.

But no. I can't even read past the third sentence. (again)

I've told you, rather diplomatically, that your story's bad. It sucks. It belongs to the ninth level of fic writers' hell. So there. I've posted a reaction to your new chapter on your wittle tag board thing. Get off my back on your story already. It's awful. It's an eyesore, and my eyes are bleeding. Unless you write even just a simple gramatically correct version of this idiot story will I read it with objectivity.

Just grammar, please. That's all I'm praying for. A grammatically correct fic.

For posterity
Kitt: I've told you about that since the very beginning. Wrong tense usage is an eyesore on readers who read present, past, and present tense in two consecutive sentences on the same topic.
Kitt: Do you have a beta? Because your tenses really slip and are inconsistent. Case in point, first three sentences. They've been inconsistent since you've started writing.
Kitt: Gill. Your tenses, please! Past tense, present tense.. present progressive. Consistency. Dialogue doesn't 'flow' right. It doesn't feel natural. They seem to be talking too formally.

:: D said @ 2:20 PM [+] ::
...

Some More

It's cool. It's great. She even has the makings of mimicking real life.

But I'm not really impressed.

Maybe I feel vindictive. There was something about her that irks me for no reason.

But anyway, back to the commenting.

It's not in proportion.

I have a thing about properly proportioned work. Maybe it's my dad's architecture rubbing off on me. But for amateur work, it's pretty.. brave. I admire her for being brave enough to do it, to make it.

I mean, it's good, but it's not fantastic. It's a whole lot of color, and attention to detail, like copying how it looks like in real life, but it's not going to be something I'd waste tubes and pots on.

I'm griping about the fact that I coulda polished up on my art, but I focused on my writing. Not that it's incredible creative writing skills, mind you. I'm above average at best. But I know, I feel that I paralleled artwork with writing I could be halfway decent with whatever I intend to color, paint, sketch, mold. I sew, fold, glue, make miniatures. In short, crafting with my hands to form tangible things. But I wish I refined using brushes, pencil and color.

I used to be good. I'm not bragging. There was this point in my life, way back in high school, that people thought that I could do well in fine arts. But it was just something I could do, you know? My dad's an architect. My little brother can draw, and my sister. It was just something normal for us, not something ooh, aah, that's so amazing, nobody can do it like you! It was as normal in our household as.. picking up a spoon and fork while eating. It's not a stess-reliever. I used it for school projects, for posters, for stuff. Not really for myself and all that. Since I took it for granted, I let it go.

So it turns out that this isn't about her. It's about me. *rolling eyes*

Some quiz-snagging

The Oracle Advises...

reading a book

Ask the Oracle a Question

ENTJ - "Field Marshall". The basic driving force and need is to lead. Tend to seek a position of responsibility and enjoys being an executive. 5% of the total population.

Take Free Myers-Briggs Personality Test

The Big Five Personality Test

Extroverted	||||||||||||||||||||	82%
Introverted	||||	18%
Friendly	||||||||||||||||||	78%
Aggressive	||||||	22%
Orderly	||||||||||||||||	68%
Disorderly	||||||||||	32%
Relaxed	||||||||||||||||||	78%
Emotional	||||||	22%
Intellectual	||||||||||||||||||||	82%
Practical	||||	18%

Take Free Big 5 Personality Test

"Explaining the Big Five"
The Big Five is currently the most accepted personality model in the scientific community. The Big Five emerged from the work of multiple independent scientists/researchers starting in the 1950s who using different techniques obtained similar results. Those results were that there are five distinct personality traits/dimensions. Here are your results on each dimension:

Extroversion results were high which suggests you are very talkative, optimistic, sociable and affectionate but possibly not very reflective.

Friendliness results were high which suggests you are very good natured, trusting, and helpful but possibly too much of a follower

Orderliness results were high which suggests you are very organized, reliable, neat, and ambitious but probably not very spontaneous and fun.

Emotional Stability results were high which suggests you are relaxed, calm, secure, unemotional and possibly too unobservant of your feelings.

Intellectualness results were high which suggests you are very creative, original, curious, imaginative but possibly not very practical.

Overall, you scored highest on Intellectualness and lowest on Orderliness

Another quiz snagged from May
10 bands (musicians) you've been listening to a lot lately:
1) John Mayer
2) Matchbox Twenty
3) Goo Goo Dolls
4) Limp Bizkit
5) Five For Fighting
6) Lifehouse
7) Plumb
8) Third Eye Blind
9) Athenaeum
10) Lisa Loeb

9 things you're looking forward to:
1) Seeing The Guy again
2) Buying John Mayer's Heavier Things
3) Buying Matchbox Twenty's More Than You Think You Are
4) Christmas
5) Buying a Nokia 6610
6) Buying presents
7) Going back to school
8) The Matrix: Revolutions
9) Return of the King

8 things you like to wear:
1) jeans
2) my boots
3) sleeveless blouse/shirts
4) heels. I miss wearing heels
5) my slippers
6) my bedclothes
7) comfortable underwear
8) my dreamcatcher necklace

7 things that annoy you:
1) People who have a misguided sense of their importance
2) Bad customer service
3) My sister when she talks to God-knows-who in the middle of the night
4) My dad when he goes on his rantings
5) pet poop
6) my phone when it goes out of whack
7) When my walkman runs out of batteries.

6 things you say most everyday:
1) Oy/ Yo
2) Grabe
3) Okay yun ah
4) Hey there!
5) Dude
6) Pucha

5 things you do everyday:
1) Read
2) Eat
3) Sleep
4) Shower
5) Brush teeth

4 people you want to spend more time with:
1) The Guy. Sigh.
2) My siblings.
3) College friends
4) High school classmates

3 movies you could watch over and over again:
1) The Cutting Edge
2) Sweet Home Alabama
3) The Matrix

There are more. (What? More?)

2 of your favorite songs at the moment:
1) Real by Plumb
2) Hold Me by Savage Garden

1 person you could spend the rest of your life with:
1) God. If I deserve it.

:: D said @ 12:36 PM [+] ::
...

Okay. I did the sneaky thing again. I thought he'd changed shifts, so I was pretty pathetic when I started thinking that we may have different schedules than ours. I didn't see him Monday, and then Tuesday. One time I was at my locker and I saw him come out to go to the washroom, from the calling area. If he was already logged in before nine, it meant his shift was earlier. Waah.

Forgive me, Evil Brudder, because I've been dropping by your office as an excuse to take a peek if Sam was already there, already gone, etc. Hee. Again, sneaky. Emil's office has a pretty good glassed-in view of the calling floor, so I'd be able to see him if he stood up from his cubicle. I don't do this often -- okay maybe *twice* a week, but I'm a sad, sad girl, so sue me. But I've gushed about Sam with Emil, and Emil says that he's a nice guy, which is good, because Emil's a cynic when it comes to judging character. It's not half bad, because Emil's usually pretty much on mark whenever he thinks there's something 'wrong' about someone.

Anyway, I didn't see Sam from Emil's cubicle. Argh. I *did* see Sam at the beginning of the shift, though, when I was (again) at my locker and I saw him coming into the washroom (lemme clarify. The locker area's this looong corridor with the men's washroom at the end of the hallway. My locker's situated between the girls' and boy's washrooms, and there's an entryway between *my* locker 'area' and his. Just so you can imagine that there's no way I wouldn't be able to see him coming out/into the washroom. I don't stalk the guy, you know. Well maybe a little *snickers*). I saw Patrick coming out first, and I greeted him hello, and we greet-hugged (kinda like "Hey there! GREAT to see you!" Pat's a good guy). Behind him, I saw Sam come out of the entryway (the one between our locker areas) and look at where we were. There were a couple of people in our locker area standing around, fixing/putting in their stuff, so it's presumptous to assume that he was looking at *me* (but of course it doesn't stop me from thinking what if. Sigh). He walked all the way to the washroom sorta holding that turning-back look. That's about a five to seven-step walk from the entryway to the washroom. (You'll get a crick in the neck, babe)

I was thinking maybe he had the eight-to-five, and I was nine-to-six, so by the time I'd've gone home, he'd be long gone. Anyway, I dropped by Emil's cubicle again (this time looking for someone to rant with regarding my suspicion on Sam's 'new schedule'. Their campaign's notorious for switching schedules/shifts every two weeks, INCLUDING days off). Emil and I talked shop for a bit, and then I bugged him that we ought to go out sometime to catch up. Told him that I think cutiepie's new schedule's changed, and I see *him* walking the floor, wearing a beige denim jacket and a faded orange cap. Yippee!

Calm down, girlie. He could be doing overtime, he most probably DID change schedules. That doesn't mean that he's leaving the same time *you* are. So after seeing glimpses (hormones! hormones!), I told Emil that I had to go, and he ought to have a great weekend. Got my stuff, walked to the other end of the hallway where the exit was. I stopped by Toni's station (which was the last station near the exit) to say hello. And I really wanted to see how they handled calls (and maybe see the orange cap again). Toni was rolling his eyes at whoever was calling, indicating that the lady he was talking to was an idiot. The orange cap floated about a couple more times. It was either he was off shift, on break or whatever. I saw him walking to the entryway. Thinking he was probably heading to the washroom again, I told Toni I'd be going home ("Happy weekend!"), waved bye, and walked out, thinking I'm done with my kilig quota of the week (just *once* a week sighting's good enough for me. :D) .

Got out, pressed the button, and just as the elevator was opening, HE comes out of the doorway, wrapping his ID lace over his ID card. You don't do that unless you're going home.

"Going down? Home?"
"Yeah. Are you going to Digicafe later?"

Oh. He's going to Digicaf with his teammates. He's prolly gonna meet up with his team at the ground.

"Nah. I'm heading home."
"How do you go home? That way, or *that* exit?" (he was gesticulating one exit from another, and we talked directions till we concluded (or *he* remembered that yeah, hello, we've gotten out of the same exit a couple of times already, idiot) that we were going the same way.

"You? Going home, or heading out?"
"Ako rin, uwi na. Me lakad ako kasi bukas eh."

God, please don't tell me he has a date or anything.

"Really? What?"

Can't blame me for not probing.

"My mom's coming over tomorrow."

Thank God. Coupled with how sweet.

"Really? That's *great*. That's really great. She comes home, what, twice a month, right?"

Oh yeah. As if I didn't commit THAT conversation to memory.

"..I mean. She comes here, and goes back home." We need to clarify. I am so close to babbling over trivialities.

He chuckles. More of the grin. "Yeah."

We step out of the elevator. I *so* do not want any distractions from talking with this guy. I was frantically thinking at the back of my head if Ron's schedule was on break, or they're off.. Ron and his friends usually smoked, and Sam and I were going to walk PAST the glassed smoking area, and HE (Ron) might use that opportunity to actually verbally ask me out and I just SO would not want that complication right then.

So. Sam and I walking out of the elevator. He walks to my right, so of the two of us, I was the one 'facing' the smoking area lobby thing.

"Could you do me a favor?" Or something similar, to that effect.

"Huh? What?" Kiss you? Hug you? Go out with you? Sure!

"Keep on talking to me."

"What? Why?" Boy, would THAT be a hardship?

"Because I don't want to go to Digicaf with the rest of them. If they see me, and nagkayayaan.. I have to go home."

I laugh. "And you're using *me* as a shield?"

He's sheepish. Sheepish and smiling. And trying to both duck his head and look like we're having an engrossing conversation while walking.

"Actually, *you* should be talking to *me*. Gimme something we can talk about." (that's me)

"I dunno." Shrugs. Still sheepish.

So, now let's go back to what we were talking about at the elevator area, okay?

"So now, you're heading home to prepare?"

"Yep. I have to go home because my cousins are picking me up at the boarding house."

"Aw, man, you live in a boarding house? Mahal, huh? Do you have like a place here you can stay in? Like maybe a relative?"

(I don't remember what he said over this one, because I sorta blanked out. I think it has something to do with yeah, it *is* expensive, but you know how it is.. Blah. I can't remember. Thing is, we were walking together and he was so close. So close that I could imagine his scent, his aura radiating, or something. Hell, I'm a girl with a crush. Hallucinations are understandable. Bottom line is, we were brushing shoulders, his jacket with my trench coat and he was smiling. And he was excited to see his mom, and he had that stuttering Filipino accent...)

"So how long will she be around?"

(I think he said a couple of days, or maybe just for the weekend. We had reached the doorway by now, and he opened the door for me, with me brushing past the wedge he'd opened for us. Another blanking-out moment.)

"You go home this way, right?" (he pointed across the street, to the left side of the intersection. Thankfully, he remembered THAT. He just simply crosses the street straight. I go left)

"Yeah." We were standing at the sidewalk before crossing the street. "Do you see that yellow bus? I ride that bus to Cubao."

"Ah" He nods. "I used to take that bus from Quiapo."

"Quiapo? Don't you live nearby? What were you doing in Quiapo?"

"Because I graduated there."

"Which school, specifically?" Me, smiling. He'd dodged this question before.

"Kung saan saan" Aww.

"Aww. Wag kang ganyan." (Don't be like that)

We've crossed to the street island.

"Okay. Well, you have fun alright? Are you still working tomorrow or anything?" Something I learned as a telemarketer: ask probing questions so you can have something to use with your customer. Probe, probe.

He shakes his head "No."

"Ah. So this is your day off?" Because last time he said his day off was Friday, which crosses over to Saturday morning, and that was last week. So now we conclude that he STILL works the 9-6 shift, with Saturdays off, until further notice. Put that on file.

"Yep."

"Well, have a great weekend, then."

"You too."

We both cross the street, and since he was wearing that orange cap, I saw him crossing from the other side of the intersection. Giddy quota of the week accomplished. That should last me throughout the weekend. *winks*

:: D said @ 11:28 AM [+] ::
...

150 Reasons Why I'm Catholic

1. Best One-Sentence Summary: I am convinced that the Catholic Church conforms much more closely to all of the biblical data, offers the only coherent view of the history of Christianity (i.e., Christian, apostolic Tradition), and possesses the most profound and sublime Christian morality, spirituality, social ethic, and philosophy.

2. Alternate: I am a Catholic because I sincerely believe, by virtue of much cumulative evidence, that Catholicism is true, and that the Catholic Church is the visible Church divinely-established by our Lord Jesus, against which the gates of hell cannot and will not prevail (Mt 16:18), thereby possessing an authority to which I feel bound in Christian duty to submit.

3. 2nd Alternate: I left Protestantism because it was seriously deficient in its interpretation of the Bible (e.g., "faith alone" and many other "Catholic" doctrines - see evidences below), inconsistently selective in its espousal of various Catholic Traditions (e.g., the Canon of the Bible), inadequate in its ecclesiology, lacking a sensible view of Christian history (e.g., "Scripture alone"), compromised morally (e.g., contraception, divorce), and unbiblically schismatic, anarchical, and relativistic. I don't therefore believe that Protestantism is all bad (not by a long shot), but these are some of the major deficiencies I eventually saw as fatal to the "theory" of Protestantism, over against Catholicism. All Catholics must regard baptized, Nicene, Chalcedonian Protestants as Christians.

4. Catholicism isn't formally divided and sectarian (Jn 17:20-23; Rom 16:17; 1 Cor 1:10-13).

5. Catholic unity makes Christianity and Jesus more believable to the world (Jn 17:23).

6. Catholicism, because of its unified, complete, fully supernatural Christian vision, mitigates against secularization and humanism.

7. Catholicism avoids an unbiblical individualism which undermines Christian community (e.g., 1 Cor 12:25-26).

8. Catholicism avoids theological relativism, by means of dogmatic certainty and the centrality of the papacy.

9. Catholicism avoids ecclesiological anarchism - one cannot merely jump to another denomination when some disciplinary measure or censure is called for.

10. Catholicism formally (although, sadly, not always in practice) prevents the theological relativism which leads to the uncertainties within the Protestant system among laypeople.

11. Catholicism rejects the "State Church," which has led to governments dominating Christianity rather than vice-versa.

12. Protestant State Churches greatly influenced the rise of nationalism, which mitigated against universal equality and Christian universalism (i.e., catholicism).

13. Unified Catholic Christendom (before the 16th century) had not been plagued by the tragic religious wars which in turn led to the "Enlightenment," in which men rejected the hypocrisy of inter-Christian warfare and decided to become indifferent to religion rather than letting it guide their lives.

14. Catholicism retains the elements of mystery, supernatural, and the sacred in Christianity, thus opposing itself to secularization, where the sphere of the religious in life becomes greatly limited.

15. Protestant individualism led to the privatization of Christianity, whereby it is little respected in societal and political life, leaving the "public square" barren of Christian influence.

16. The secular false dichotomy of "church vs. world" has led committed orthodox Christians, by and large, to withdraw from politics, leaving a void filled by pagans, cynics, unscrupulous, and power-hungry. Catholicism offers a framework in which to approach the state and civic responsibility.

17. Protestantism leans too much on mere traditions of men (every denomination stems from one Founder's vision. As soon as two or more of these contradict each other, error is necessarily present).

18. Protestant churches (esp. evangelicals), are far too often guilty of putting their pastors on too high of a pedestal. In effect, every pastor becomes a "pope," to varying degrees (some are "super-popes"). Because of this, evangelical congregations often experience a severe crisis and/or split up when a pastor leaves, thus proving that their philosophy is overly man-centered, rather than God-centered.

19. Protestantism, due to lack of real authority and dogmatic structure, is tragically prone to accommodation to the spirit of the age, and moral faddism.

20. Catholicism retains apostolic succession, necessary to know what is true Christian apostolic Tradition. It was the criterion of Christian truth used by the early Christians.

21. Many Protestants take a dim view towards Christian history in general, esp. the years from 313 (Constantine's conversion) to 1517 (Luther's arrival). This ignorance and hostility to Catholic Tradition leads to theological relativism, anti-Catholicism, and a constant, unnecessary process of "reinventing the wheel."

22. Protestantism from its inception was anti-Catholic, and remains so to this day (esp. evangelicalism). This is obviously wrong and unbiblical if Catholicism is indeed Christian (if it isn't, then - logically - neither is Protestantism, which inherited the bulk of its theology from Catholicism). The Catholic Church, on the other hand, is not anti-Protestant.

23. The Catholic Church accepts the authority of the great Ecumenical Councils (see, e.g., Acts 15) which defined and developed Christian doctrine (much of which Protestantism also accepts).

24. Most Protestants do not have bishops, a Christian office which is biblical (1 Tim 3:1-2) and which has existed from the earliest Christian history and Tradition.

25. Protestantism has no way of settling doctrinal issues definitively. At best, the individual Protestant can only take a head count of how many Protestant scholars, commentators, etc. take such-and-such a view on Doctrine X, Y, or Z. There is no unified Protestant Tradition.

26. Protestantism arose in 1517, and is a "Johnny-come-lately" in the history of Christianity. Therefore it cannot possibly be the "restoration" of "pure", "primitive" Christianity, since this is ruled out by the fact of its absurdly late appearance. Christianity must have historic continuity or it is not Christianity. Protestantism is necessarily a "parasite" of Catholicism, historically and doctrinally speaking.

27. The Protestant notion of the "invisible church" is also novel in the history of Christianity and foreign to the Bible (Mt 5:14; 16:18), therefore untrue.

28. When Protestant theologians speak of the teaching of early Christianity (e.g., when refuting "cults"), they say "the Church taught . . ." (as it was then unified), but when they refer to the present they instinctively and inconsistently refrain from such terminology, since universal teaching authority now clearly resides only in the Catholic Church.

29. The Protestant principle of private judgment has created a milieu (esp. in Protestant America) in which (invariably) man-centered "cults" such as Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormonism, and Christian Science arise. The very notion that one can "start" a new, or "the true" Church is Protestant to the core.

30. The lack of a definitive teaching authority in Protestant (as with the Catholic magisterium) makes many individual Protestants think that they have a direct line to God, notwithstanding all of Christian Tradition and the history of biblical exegesis (a "Bible, Holy Spirit and me" mentality). Such people are generally under-educated theologically, unteachable, lack humility, and have no business making presumed "infallible" statements about the nature of Christianity.

31. Evangelicalism's "techniques" of evangelism are often contrived and manipulative, certainly not directly derived from the text of the Bible. Some even resemble brainwashing to a degree.

32. The gospel preached by many evangelical Protestant evangelists and pastors is a truncated and abridged, individualistic and ear-tickling gospel, in effect merely "fire insurance" rather than the biblical gospel as proclaimed by the Apostles.

33. Evangelicalism often separates profound, life-transforming repentance and radical discipleship from its gospel message. The Lutheran Bonhoeffer called this "cheap grace."

34. The absence of the idea of submission to spiritual authority in Protestantism has leaked over into the civic arena, where the ideas of personal "freedom," "rights," and "choice" now dominate to such an extent that civic duty, communitarianism, and discipline are tragically neglected, to the detriment of a healthy society.

35. Catholicism retains the sense of the sacred, the sublime, the holy, and the beautiful in spirituality. The ideas of altar, and "sacred space" are preserved. Many Protestant churches are no more than "meeting halls" or "gymnasiums" or "barn"-type structures. Most Protestants' homes are more esthetically striking than their churches. Likewise, Protestants are often "addicted to mediocrity" in their appreciation of art, music, architecture, drama, the imagination, etc.

36. Protestantism has largely neglected the place of liturgy in worship (with notable exceptions such as Anglicanism and Lutheranism). This is the way Christians had always worshiped down through the centuries, and thus can't be so lightly dismissed.

37. Protestantism tends to oppose matter and spirit, favoring the latter, and is somewhat Gnostic or Docetic in this regard.

38. Catholicism upholds the "incarnational principle," wherein Jesus became flesh and thus raised flesh and matter to new spiritual heights.

39. Protestantism greatly limits or disbelieves in sacramentalism, which is simply the extension of the incarnational principle and the belief that matter can convey grace. Some sects (e.g., Baptists, many pentecostals) reject all sacraments.

40. Protestants' excessive mistrust of the flesh ("carnality") often leads to (in evangelicalism or fundamentalism) an absurd legalism (no dancing, drinking, card-playing, rock music, etc.).

41. Many Protestants tend to separate life into categories of "spiritual" and "carnal," as if God is not Lord of all of life. It forgets that all non-sinful endeavors are ultimately spiritual.

42. Protestantism has removed the Eucharist from the center and focus of Christian worship services. Some Protestants observe it only monthly, or even quarterly. This is against the Tradition of the early Church.

43. Most Protestants regard the Eucharist symbolically, which is contrary to universal Christian Tradition up to 1517, and the Bible (Mt 26:26-8; Jn 6:47-63; 1 Cor 10:14-22; 11:23-30), which hold to the Real Presence (another instance of the antipathy to matter).

44. Protestantism has virtually ceased to regard marriage as a sacrament, contrary to Christian Tradition and the Bible (Mt 19:4-5; 1 Cor 7:14,39; Eph 5:25-33).

45. Protestantism has abolished the priesthood (Mt 18:18) and the sacrament of ordination, contrary to Christian Tradition and the Bible (Acts 6:6; 14:22; 1 Tim 4:14; 2 Tim 1:6).

46. Catholicism retains the Pauline notion of the spiritual practicality of a celibate clergy (e.g., Mt 19:12, 1 Cor 7:8,27,32-3).

47. Protestantism has largely rejected the sacrament of confirmation (Acts 8:18, Heb 6:2-4), contrary to Christian Tradition and the Bible.

48. Many Protestants have denied infant baptism, contrary to Christian Tradition and the Bible (Acts 2:38-9; 16:15,33; 18:8; cf. 11:14; 1 Cor 1:16; Col 2:11-12). Protestantism is divided into five major camps on the question of baptism.

49. The great majority of Protestants deny baptismal regeneration, contrary to Christian Tradition and the Bible (Mk 16:16; Jn 3:5; Acts 2:38; 22:16; Rom 6:3-4; 1 Cor 6:11; Titus 3:5).

50. Protestants have rejected the sacrament of anointing of the sick (Extreme Unction / "Last Rites"), contrary to Christian Tradition and the Bible (Mk 6:13; 1 Cor 12:9,30; Jas 5:14-15).

51. Protestantism denies the indissolubility of sacramental marriage and allows divorce, contrary to Christian Tradition and the Bible (Gen 2:24; Mal 2:14-16; Mt 5:32; 19:6,9; Mk 10:11-12; Lk 16:18; Rom 7:2-3; 1 Cor 7:10-14,39).

52. Protestantism doesn't believe procreation to be the primary purpose and benefit of marriage (it isn't part of the vows, as in Catholic matrimony), contrary to Christian Tradition and the Bible (Gen 1:28; 28:3, Ps 107:38; 127:3-5).

53. Protestantism sanctions contraception, in defiance of universal Christian Tradition (Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant) up until 1930 - when the Anglicans first allowed it - and the Bible (Gen 38:8-10; 41:52; Ex 23:25-6; Lev 26:9; Deut 7:14; Ruth 4:13; Lk 1:24-5). Now, only Catholicism retains the ancient Tradition, over against the "anti-child" mentality.

54. Protestantism (mostly its liberal wing) has accepted abortion as a moral option, contrary to universal Christian Tradition until recently (sometime after 1930), and the Bible (e.g., Ex 20:13; Job 31:15; Ps 139:13-16; Isa 44:2; 49:5; Jer 1:5; 2:34; Lk 1:15,41; Rom 13:9-10).

55. Protestantism (largely liberal denominations) allow women pastors (and even bishops, as in Anglicanism), contrary to Christian Tradition (inc. traditional Protestant theology) and the Bible (Mt 10:1-4; 1 Tim 2:11-15; 3:1-12; Titus 1:6).

56. Protestantism is, more and more, formally and officially compromising with currently fashionable radical feminism, which denies the roles of men and women, as taught in the Bible (Gen 2:18-23; 1 Cor 11:3-10) and maintained by Christian Tradition (differentiation of roles, but not of equality).

57. Protestantism is also currently denying, with increasing frequency, the headship of the husband in marriage, which is based upon the headship of the Father over the Son (while equal in essence) in the Trinity, contrary to Christian Tradition and the Bible (1 Cor 11:3; Eph 5:22-33; Col 3:18-19; 1 Pet 3:1-2). This too, is based on a relationship of equality (1 Cor 11:11-12; Gal 3:28; Eph 5:21).

58. Liberal Protestantism (most notably Anglicanism) has even ordained practicing homosexuals as pastors and blessed their "marriages," or taught that homosexuality is merely an involuntary, "alternate" lifestyle, contrary to formerly universal Christian Tradition, as the Bible clearly teaches (Gen 19:4-25; Rom 1:18-27; 1 Cor 6:9). Catholicism stands firm on traditional morality.

59. Liberal Protestantism, and evangelicalism increasingly, have accepted "higher critical" methods of biblical interpretation which lead to the destruction of the traditional Christian reverence for the Bible, and demote it to the status of largely a human, fallible document, to the detriment of its divine, infallible essence.

60. Many liberal Protestants have thrown out many cardinal doctrines of Christianity, such as the Incarnation, Virgin Birth, the Bodily Resurrection of Christ, the Trinity, Original Sin, hell, the existence of the devil, miracles, etc.

61. The founders of Protestantism denied, and Calvinists today deny, the reality of human free will (Luther's favorite book was his Bondage of the Will). This is both contrary to the constant premise of the Bible, Christian Tradition, and common sense.

62. Classical Protestantism had a deficient view of the Fall of Man, thinking that the result was "total depravity." According to Luther, Zwingli, Calvin, and Calvinists, man could only do evil of his own volition, and had no free will to do good. He now has a "sin nature." Catholicism believes that, in a mysterious way, man cooperates with the grace which always precedes all good actions. In Catholicism, man's nature still retains some good, although he has a propensity to sin ("concupiscence").

63. Classical Protestantism, and Calvinism today, make God the author of evil. He supposedly wills that men do evil and violate His precepts without having any free will to do so. This is blasphemous, and turns God into a demon.

64. Accordingly (man having no free will), God, in classical Protestant and Calvinist thought, predestines men to hell, although they had no choice or say in the matter all along!

65. Classical Protestantism and Calvinism, teach falsely that Jesus died only for the elect (i.e., those who will make it to heaven).

66. Classical Protestantism (esp. Luther), and Calvinism, due to their false view of the Fall, deny the efficacy and capacity of human reason to know God to some extent (both sides agree that revelation and grace are also necessary), and oppose it to God and faith, contrary to Christian Tradition and the Bible (Mk 12:28; Lk 10:27; Jn 20:24-9; Acts 1:3; 17:2,17,22-34; 19:8). The best Protestant apologists today simply hearken back to the Catholic heritage of St. Aquinas, St. Augustine, and many other great thinkers.

67. Pentecostal or charismatic Protestantism places much too high an emphasis on spiritual experience, not balancing it properly with reason, the Bible, and Tradition (including the authority of the Church to pronounce on the validity of "private revelations").

68. Other Protestants (e.g., many Baptists) deny that spiritual gifts such as healing are present in the current age (supposedly they ceased with the apostles).

69. Protestantism has contradictory views of church government, or ecclesiology (episcopal, presbyterian, congregational, or no collective authority at all), thus making discipline, unity and order impossible. Some sects even claim to have "apostles" or "prophets" among them, with all the accompanying abuses of authority resulting therefrom.

70. Protestantism (esp. evangelicalism) has an undue fascination for the "end of the world," which has led to unbiblical date-setting (Mt 24:30-44; 25:13; Lk 12:39-40) and much human tragedy among those who are taken in by such false prophecies.

71. Evangelicalism's over-emphasis on the "imminent end" of the age has often led to a certain "pie-in-the sky" mentality, to the detriment of social, political, ethical, and economic sensibilities here on earth.

72. Protestant thought has the defining characteristic of being "dichotomous," i.e., it separates ideas into more or less exclusive and mutually-hostile camps, when in fact many of the dichotomies are simply complementary rather than contradictory. Protestantism is "either-or," whereas Catholicism takes a "both-and" approach. Examples follow:

73. Protestantism pits the Word (the Bible, preaching) against sacraments.

74. Protestantism sets up inner devotion and piety against the Liturgy.

75. Protestantism opposes spontaneous worship to form prayers.

76. Protestantism separates the Bible from the Church.

77. Protestantism creates the false dichotomy of Bible vs. Tradition.

78. Protetantism pits Tradition against the Holy Spirit.

79. Protestantism considers Church authority and individual liberty and conscience contradictory.

80. Protestantism (esp. Luther) sets up the Old Testament against the New Testament, even though Jesus did not do so (Mt 5:17-19; Mk 7:8-11; Lk 24:27,44; Jn 5:45-47).

81. On equally unbiblical grounds, Protestantism opposes law to grace.

82. Protestantism creates a false dichotomy between symbolism and sacramental reality (e.g., baptism, Eucharist).

83. Protestantism separates the Individual from Christian community (1 Cor 12:14-27).

84. Protestantism pits the veneration of saints against the worship of God. Catholic theology doesn't permit worship of saints in the same fashion as that directed towards God. Saints are revered and honored, not adored, as only God the Creator can be.

85. The anti-historical outlook of many Protestants leads to individuals thinking that the Holy Spirit is speaking to them, but has not, in effect, spoken to the multitudes of Christians for 1500 years before Protestantism began!

86. Flaws in original Protestant thought have led to even worse errors in reaction. E.g., extrinsic justification, devised to assure the predominance of grace, came to prohibit any outward sign of its presence ("faith vs. works," "sola fide"). Calvinism, with its cruel God, turned men off to such an extent that they became Unitarians (as in New England). Many founders of cults of recent origin started out Calvinist (Jehovah's Witnesses, Christian Science, The Way International, etc.).

87. Evangelicalism is unbiblically obsessed (in typically American fashion) with celebrities (TV Evangelists).

88. Evangelicalism is infatuated with the false idea that great numbers in a congregation (or rapid growth) are a sign of God's presence in a special way, and His unique blessing. They forget that Mormonism is also growing by leaps and bounds. God calls us to faithfulness rather than to "success," obedience, not flattering statistics.

89. Evangelicalism often emphasizes numerical growth rather than individual spiritual growth.

90. Evangelicalism is presently obsessed with self-fulfillment, self-help, and oftentimes, outright selfishness, rather than the traditional Christian stress on suffering, sacrifice, and service.

91. Evangelicalism has a truncated and insufficient view of the place of suffering in the Christian life. Instead, "health-and-wealth" and "name-it-and-claim-it" movements within pentecostal Protestantism are flourishing, which have a view of possessions not in harmony with the Bible and Christian Tradition.

92. Evangelicalism has, by and large, adopted a worldview which is, in many ways, more capitalist than Christian. Wealth and personal gain is sought more than godliness, and is seen as a proof of God's favor, as in Puritan, and secularized American thought, over against the Bible and Christian teaching.

93. Evangelicalism is increasingly tolerating far-left political outlooks not in accord with Christian views, esp. at its seminaries and colleges.

94. Evangelicalism is increasingly tolerating theological heterodoxy and liberalism, to such an extent that many evangelical leaders are alarmed, and predict a further decay of orthodox standards.

95. "Positive confession" mvements in pentecostal evangelicalism have adopted views of God (in effect) as a "cosmic bellhop," subject to man's frivolous whims and desires of the moment, thus denying God's absolute sovereignty and prerogative to turn down any of man's improper prayer requests (Jas 4:3; 1 Jn 5:14).

96. The above sects usually teach that anyone can be healed who has enough "faith," contrary to Christian Tradition and the Bible (e.g., Job, St. Paul's "thorn in the flesh," usu. considered a disease by most Protestant commentators).

97. Evangelicalism, by its own self-critiques, is badly infected with pragmatism, the false philosophical view that "whatever works is true, or right." The gospel, esp. on TV, is sold in the same way that McDonalds hawks hamburgers. Technology, mass-market and public relations techniques have largely replaced personal pastoral care and social concern for the downtrodden, irreligious, and unchurched masses.

98. Sin, in evangelicalism, is increasingly seen as a psychological failure or a lack of self-esteem, rather than the willful revolt against God that it is.

99. Protestantism, in all essential elements, merely borrows wholesale from Catholic Tradition, or distorts the same. All doctrines upon which Catholics and Protestants agree, are clearly Catholic in origin (Trinity, Virgin Birth, Resurrection, 2nd Coming, Canon of the Bible, heaven, hell, etc.). Those where Protestantism differs are usually distortions of Catholic forerunners. E.g., Quakerism is a variant of Catholic Quietism. Calvinism is an over-obsession with the Catholic idea of the sovereignty of God, but taken to lengths beyond what Catholicism ever taught (denial of free will, total depravity, double predestination, etc.). Protestant dichotomies such as faith vs. works, come from nominalism, which was itself a corrupt form of Scholasticism, never dogmatically sanctioned by the Catholic Church. Whatever life or truth is present in each Protestant idea, always is derived from Catholicism, which is the fulfillment of the deepest and best aspirations within Protestantism.

100. One of Protestantism's foundational principles is sola Scriptura, which is neither a biblical (see below), historical (nonexistent until the 16th century), nor logical (it's self-defeating) idea:

101. The Bible doesn't contain the whole of Jesus' teaching, or Christianity, as many Protestants believe (Mk 4:33; 6:34; Lk 24:15-16,25-27; Jn 16:12; 20:30; 21:25; Acts 1:2-3).

102. Sola scriptura is an abuse of the Bible, since it is a use of the Bible contrary to its explicit and implicit testimony about itself and Tradition. An objective reading of the Bible leads one to Tradition and the Catholic Church, rather than the opposite. The Bible is, in fact, undeniably a Christian Tradition itself!

103. The NT was neither written nor received as the Bible at first, but only gradually so (i.e., early Christianity couldn't have believed in sola Scriptura like current Protestants, unless it referred to the OT alone).

104. Tradition is not a bad word in the Bible. Gk. paradosis refers to something handed on from one to another (good or bad). Good (Christian) Tradition is spoken of in 1 Cor 11:2; 2 Thess 2:15, 3:6, and Col 2:8. In the latter it is contrasted with traditions of men.

105. Christian Tradition, according to the Bible, can be oralas well as written (2 Thess 2:15; 2 Tim 1:13-14; 2:2). St. Paul makes no qualitative distinction between the two forms.

106. The phrases "word of God" or "word of the Lord" in Acts and the epistles almost always refer to oral preaching, not to the Bible itself. Much of the Bible was originally oral (e.g., Jesus' entire teaching- He wrote nothing -St. Peter's sermon at Pentecost, etc.).

107. Contrary to many Protestant claims, Jesus didn't condemn all tradition any more than St. Paul did. E.g., Mt 15:3,6; Mk 7:8-9,13, where He condemns corrupt Pharisaical tradition only. He says "your tradition."

108. Gk. paradidomi, or "delivering" Christian, apostolic Tradition occurs in Lk 1:1-2; Rom 6:17; 1 Cor 11:23; 15:3; 2 Pet 2:21; Jude 3. Paralambano, or "receiving" Christian Tradition occurs in 1 Cor 15:1-2; Gal 1:9,12; 1 Thess 2:13.

109. The concepts of "Tradition," "gospel," "word of God," "doctrine," and "the Faith" are essentially synonymous, and all are predominantly oral. E.g., in the Thessalonian epistles alone St. Paul uses 3 of these interchangeably (2 Thess 2:15; 3:6; 1 Thess 2:9,13 (cf. Gal 1:9; Acts 8:14). If Tradition is a dirty word, then so is "gospel" and "word of God"!

110. St. Paul, in 1 Tim 3:15, puts the Church above Bible as the grounds for truth, as in Catholicism.

111. Protestantism's chief "proof text" for sola Scriptura, 2 Tim 3:16, fails, since it says that the Bible is profitable, but not sufficient for learning and righteousness. Catholicism agrees it is great for these purposes, but not exclusively so, as in Protestantism. Secondly, when St. Paul speaks of "Scripture" here, the NT didn't yet exist (not definitively for over 300 more years), thus he is referring to the OT only. This would mean that NT wasn't necessary for the rule of faith, if sola Scriptura were true, and if it were supposedly alluded to in this verse!

112. The above 11 factors being true, Catholicism maintains that all its Tradition is consistent with the Bible, even where the Bible is mute or merely implicit on a subject. For Catholicism, every doctrine need not be found primarily in the Bible, for this is Protestantism's principle of sola Scriptura. On the other hand, most Catholic theologians claim that all Catholic doctrines can be found in some fashion in the Bible, in kernel form, or by (usu. extensive) inference.

113. As thoughtful evangelical scholars have pointed out, an unthinking sola Scriptura position can turn into "bibliolatry," almost a worship of the Bible rather than God who is its Author. This mentality is similar to the Muslim view of Revelation, where no human elements whatsoever were involved. Sola Scriptura,, rightly understood from a more sophisticated Protestant perspective, means that the Bible is the final authority in Christianity, not the record of all God has said and done, as many evangelicals believe.

114. Christianity is unavoidably and intrinsically historical. All the events of Jesus' life (Incarnation, Crucifixion, Resurrection, Ascension, etc.) were historical, as was the preaching of the apostles. Tradition, therefore, of some sort, is unavoidable, contrary to numerous shortsighted Protestant claims that sola Scriptura annihilates Tradition. This is true both for matters great (ecclesiology, trinitarianism, justification) and small (church budgets, type of worship music, lengths of sermons, etc.). Every denial of a particular tradition involves a bias (hidden or open) towards one's own alternate tradition (E.g., if all Church authority is spurned, even individualistic autonomy is a "tradition," which ought to be defended as a Christian view in some fashion).

115. Sola scriptura literally couldn't have been true, practically speaking, for most Christians throughout history, since the movable-type printing press only appeared in the mid-15th century. Preaching and oral Tradition, along with things like devotional practices, Christian holidays, church architecture and other sacred art, were the primary carriers of the gospel for 1400 years. For all these centuries, sola Scriptura would have been regarded as an absurd abstraction and impossibility.

116. Protestantism claims that the Catholic Church has "added to the Bible." The Catholic Church replies that it has merely drawn out the implications of the Bible (development of doctrine), and followed the understanding of the early Church, and that Protestants have "subtracted" from the Bible by ignoring large portions of it which suggest Catholic positions. Each side thinks the other is "unbiblical," but in different ways.

117. Sola Scriptura is Protestantism's "Achilles' Heel." Merely invoking sola Scriptura is no solution to the problem of authority and certainty as long as multiple interpretations exist. If the Bible were so clear that all Protestants agreed simply by reading it with a willingness to accept and follow its teaching, this would be one thing, but since this isn't the case by a long shot (the multiplicity of denominations), sola Scriptura is a pipe-dream at best. About all that all Protestants agree on is that Catholicism is wrong! Of all Protestant ideas, the "clarity" or perspicuity of the Bible is surely one of the most absurd and the most demonstrably false by the historical record.

118. Put another way, having a Bible does not render one's private judgment infallible. Interpretation is just as inevitable as tradition. The Catholic Church therefore, is absolutely necessary in order to speak authoritatively and to prevent confusion, error, and division.

119. Catholicism doesn't regard the Bible as obscure, mysterious, and inaccessible, but it is vigilant to protect it from all arbitrary and aberrant exegesis (2 Pet 1:20, 3:16). The best Protestant traditions seek to do the same, but are inadequate and ineffectual since they are divided.

120. Protestantism has a huge problem with the Canon of the NT. The process of determining the exact books which constitute the NT lasted until 397 A.D., when the Council of Carthage spoke with finality, certainly proof that the Bible is not "self-authenticating," as Protestantism believes. Some sincere, devout, and learned Christians doubted the canonicity of some books which are now in the Bible, and others considered books as Scripture which were not at length included in the Canon. St. Athanasius in 367 was the first to list all 27 books in the NT as Scripture.

121. The Council of Carthage, in deciding the Canon of the entire Bible in 397, included the so-called "Apocryphal" books, which Protestants kicked out of the Bible (i.e., a late tradition). Prior to the 16th century Christians considered these books Scripture, and they weren't even separated from the others, as they are today in the Protestant Bibles which include them. Protestantism accepts the authority of this Council for the NT, but not the OT, just as it arbitrarily and selectively accepts or denies other conciliar decrees, according to their accord with existing Protestant "dogmas" and biases.

122. Contrary to Protestant anti-Catholic myth, the Catholic Church has always revered the Bible, and hasn't suppressed it (it protested some Protestant translations, but Protestants have often done the same regarding Catholic versions). This is proven by the laborious care of monks in protecting and copying manuscripts, and the constant translations into vernacular tongues (as opposed to the falsehoods about only Latin Bibles), among other plentiful and indisputable historical evidences. The Bible is a Catholic book, and no matter how much Protestants study it and proclaim it as peculiarly their own, they must acknowledge their undeniable debt to the Catholic Church for having decided the Canon, and for preserving the Bible intact for 1400 years. How could the Catholic Church be "against the Bible," as anti-Catholics say, yet at the same time preserve and revere the Bible profoundly for so many years? The very thought is so absurd as to be self-refuting. If Catholicism is indeed as heinous as anti-Catholics would have us believe, Protestantism ought to put together its own Bible, instead of using the one delivered to them by the Catholic Church, as it obviously could not be trusted!

123. Protestantism denies the Sacrifice of the Mass, contrary to Christian Tradition and the Bible (Gen 14:18; Ps 110:4; Isa 66:18,21; Mal 1:11; Heb 7:24-5; 13:10; Rev 5:1-10/cf. 8:3; 13:8). Catholicism, it must be emphasized, doesn't believe that Jesus is sacrificed over and over at each Mass; rather, each Mass is a representation of the one Sacrifice at Calvary on the Cross, which transcends space and time, as in Rev 13:8.

124. Protestantism disbelieves, by and large, in the development of doctrine, contrary to Christian Tradition and many implicit biblical indications. Whenever the Bible refers to the increasing knowledge and maturity of Christians individually and (particularly) collectively, an idea similar to development is present. Further, many doctrines develop in the Bible before our eyes ("progressive revelation"). Examples: the afterlife, the Trinity, acceptance of Gentiles. And doctrines which Protestantism accepts whole and entire from Catholicism, such as the Trinity and the Canon of the Bible, developed in history, in the first three centuries of Christianity. It is foolish to try and deny this. The Church is the "Body" of Christ, and is a living organism, which grows and develops like all living bodies. It is not a statue, simply to be cleaned and polished over time, as many Protestants seem to think.

125. Protestantism separates justification from sanctification, contrary to Christian Tradition and the Bible (e.g., Mt 5:20; 7:20-24; Rom 2:7-13; 1 Cor 6:11; 1 Pet 1:2).

126. Protestantism pits faith against works (sola fide), which is a rejection of Christian Tradition and the explicit teaching of the Bible (Mt 25:31-46; Lk 18:18-25; Jn 6:27-9; Gal 5:6; Eph 2:8-10; Phil 2:12-13; 3:10-14; 1 Thess 1:3; 2 Thess 1:11; Heb 5:9; Jas 1:21-7; 2:14-16). These passages also indicate that salvation is a process, not an instantaneous event, as in Protestantism.

127. Protestantism rejects the Christian Tradition and biblical teaching of merit, or differential reward for our good deeds done in faith (Mt 16:27; Rom 2:6; 1 Cor 3:8-9; 1 Pet 1:17; Rev 22:12).

128. Protestantism's teaching of extrinsic, imputed, forensic, or external justification contradicts the Christian Tradition and biblical doctrine of infused, actual, internal, transformational justification (which inc. sanctification): Ps 51:2-10; 103:12; Jn 1:29; Rom 5:19; 2 Cor 5:17; Heb 1:3; 1 Jn 1:7-9.

129. Many Protestants (esp. Presbyterians, Calvinists and Baptists) believe in eternal security, or, perseverance of the saints (the belief that one can't lose his "salvation," supposedly obtained at one point in time). This is contrary to Christian Tradition and the Bible: 1 Cor 9:27; Gal 4:9; 5:1,4; Col 1:22-3; 1 Tim 1:19-20; 4:1; 5:15; Heb 3:12-14; 6:4-6; 10:26,29,39; 12:14-15; 2 Pet 2:15,20-21; Rev 2:4-5.

130. Contrary to Protestant myth and anti-Catholicism, the Catholic Church doesn't teach that one is saved by works apart from preceding and enabling grace, but that faith and works are inseparable, as in James 1 and 2. This heresy of which Catholicism is often charged, was in fact condemned by the Catholic Church at the Second Council of Orange in 529 A.D. It is known as Pelagianism, the view that man could save himself by his own natural efforts, without the necessary supernatural grace from God. A more moderate view, Semi-Pelagianism, was likewise condemned. To continue to accuse the Catholic Church of this heresy is a sign of both prejudice and manifest ignorance of the history of theology, as well as the clear Catholic teaching of the Council of Trent (1545-63), available for all to see. Yet the myth is strangely prevalent.

131. Protestantism has virtually eliminated the practice of confession to a priest (or at least a pastor), contrary to Christian Tradition and the Bible (Mt 16:19; 18:18; Jn 20:23).

132. Protestantism disbelieves in penance, or temporal punishment for (forgiven) sin, over against Christian Tradition and the Bible (e.g., Num 14:19-23; 2 Sam 12:13-14; 1 Cor 11:27-32; Heb 12:6-8).

133. Protestantism has little concept of the Tradition and biblical doctrine of mortifying the flesh, or, suffering with Christ: Mt 10:38; 16:24: Rom 8:13,17; 1 Cor 12:24-6; Phil 3:10; 1 Pet 4:1,13.

134. Likewise, Protestantism has lost the Tradition and biblical doctrine of vicarious atonement, or redemptive suffering with Christ, of Christians for the sake of each other: Ex 32:30-32; Num 16:43-8; 25:6-13; 2 Cor 4:10; Col 1:24; 2 Tim 4:6.

135. Protestantism has rejected the Tradition and biblical doctrine of purgatory, as a consequence of its false view of justification and penance, despite sufficient evidence in Scripture: Is 4:4; 6:5-7; Micah 7:8-9; Mal 3:1-4; 2 Maccabees 12:39-45; Mt 5:25-6; 12:32; Lk 16:19-31 (cf. Eph 4:8-10; 1 Pet 3:19-20); 1 Cor 3:11-15; 2 Cor 5:10; Rev 21:27.

136. Protestantism has rejected (largely due to misconceptions and misunderstanding) the Catholic developed doctrine of indulgences, which is, simply, the remission of the temporal punishment for sin (i.e., penance), by the Church (on the grounds of Mt 16:19; 18:18, and Jn 20:23). This is no different than what St. Paul did, concerning an errant brother at the Church of Corinth. He first imposed a penance on him (1 Cor 5:3-5), then remitted part of it (an indulgence: 2 Cor 2:6-11). Just because abuses occurred prior to the Protestant Revolt (admitted and rectified by the Catholic Church), is no reason to toss out yet another biblical doctrine. It is typical of Protestantism to burn down a house rather than to cleanse it, to "throw the baby out with the bath water."

137. Protestantism has thrown out prayers for the dead, in opposition to Christian Tradition and the Bible (Tobit 12:12; 2 Maccabees 12:39-45; 1 Cor 15:29; 2 Tim 1:16-18; also verses having to do with purgatory, since these prayers are for the saints there).

138. Protestantism rejects, on inadequate grounds, the intercession of the saints for us after death, and the correspondent invocation of the saints for their effectual prayers (Jas 5:16). Christian Tradition and the Bible, on the other hand, have upheld this practice: Dead saints are aware of earthly affairs (Mt 22:30 w/ Lk 15:10 and 1 Cor 15:29; Heb 12:1), appear on earth to interact with men (1 Sam 28:12-15; Mt 17:1-3, 27:50-53; Rev 11:3), and therefore can intercede for us, and likewise be petitioned for their prayers, just as are Christians on earth (2 Maccabees 15:14; Rev 5:8; 6:9-10).

139. Some Protestants disbelieve in Guardian Angels, despite Christian Tradition and the Bible (Ps 34:7; 91:11; Mt 18:10; Acts 12:15; Heb 1:14).

140. Most Protestants deny that angels can intercede for us, contrary to Christian Tradition and the Bible (Rev 1:4; 5:8; 8:3-4).

141. Protestantism rejects Mary's Immaculate Conception, despite developed Christian Tradition and indications in the Bible: Gen 3:15; Lk 1:28 ("full of grace" Catholics interpret, on linguistic grounds, to mean "without sin"); Mary as a type of the Ark of the Covenant (Lk 1:35 w/ Ex 40:34-8; Lk 1:44 w/ 2 Sam 6:14-16; Lk 1:43 w/ 2 Sam 6:9: God's Presence requires extraordinary holiness).

142. Protestantism rejects Mary's Assumption, despite developed Christian Tradition and biblical indications: If Mary was indeed sinless, she would not have to undergo bodily decay at death (Ps 16:10; Gen 3:19). Similar occurrences in the Bible make the Assumption not implausible or "unbiblical" per se (Enoch: Gen 5:24 w/ Heb 11:5; Elijah: 2 Ki 2:11; Paul: 2 Cor 12:2-4; the Protestant doctrine of the "Rapture": 1 Thess 4:15-17; risen saints: Mt 27:52-3).

143. Many (most?) Protestants deny Mary's perpetual virginity, despite Christian Tradition (inc. the unanimous agreement of the Protestant founders (Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, etc.), some Protestant support, and several biblical evidences, too involved to briefly summarize.

144. Protestantism denies Mary's Spiritual Motherhood of Christians, contrary to Christian Tradition and the Bible (Jn 19:26-7: "Behold thy mother"; Rev 12:1,5,17: Christians described as "her seed.") Catholics believe that Mary is incomparably more alive and holy than we are, hence, her prayers for us are of great effect (Jas 5:16; Rev 5:8; 6:9-10). But she is our sister with regard to our position of creatures vis-a-vis the Creator, God. Mary never operates apart from the necessary graces from her Son, and always glorifies Him, not herself, as Catholic theology stresses.

145. Protestantism rejects the papacy, despite profound Christian Tradition, and the strong evidence in the Bible of Peter's preeminence and commission by Jesus as the Rock of His Church. No one denies he was some type of leader among the apostles. The papacy as we now know it is derived from this primacy: Mt 16:18-19; Lk 22:31-2; Jn 21:15-17 are the most direct "papal" passages. Peter's name appears first in all lists of apostles; even an angel implies he is their leader (Mk 16:7), and he is accepted by the world as such (Acts 2:37-8,41). He works the first miracle of the Church age (Acts 3:6-8), utters the first anathema (Acts 5:2-11), raises the dead (Acts 9:40), first receives the Gentiles (Acts 10:9-48), and his name is mentioned more often than all the other disciples put together (191 times). Much more similar evidence can be found.

146. The Church of Rome and the popes were central to the governance and theological direction and orthodoxyof the Christian Church from the beginning. This is undeniable. All of the historical groups now regarded as heretical by Protestants and Catholics alike were originally judged as such by popes and/or Ecumenical Councils presided over and ratified by popes.

147. Protestantism, in its desperation to eke out some type of historical continuity apart from the Catholic Church, sometimes attempts to claim a lineage from medieval sects such as the Waldenses, Cathari, and Albigensians (and sometimes earlier groups such as the Montanists or Donatists). However, this endeavor is doomed to failure when one studies closely what these sects believed. They either retain much Catholic teaching anathema to Protestants or hold heretical notions antithetical to Christianity altogether (Catholic, Protestant, and Orthodox), or both, making this Protestant theory quite dubious at best.

148. Catholic has the most sophisticated and thoughtful Christian socio-economic and political philosophy, a mixture of "progressive" and "conservative" elements distinct from the common-place political rhetoric and Machiavellianism which typically dominate the political arena. Catholicism has the best view of church in relation to the state and culture as well.

149. Catholicism has the best Christian philosophy and worldview, worked out through centuries of reflection and experience. As in its theological reflection and development, the Catholic Church is ineffably wise and profound, to an extent truly amazing, and indicative of a sure divine stamp. I used to marvel, just before I converted, at how the Catholic Church could be so right about so many things. I was accustomed to thinking, as a good evangelical, that the truth was always a potpourri of ideas from many Protestant denominations and Catholicism and Orthodoxy (selected by me), and that none "had it all together." But, alas, the Catholic Church does, after all!

150. Last but by no means least, Catholicism has the most sublime spirituality and devotional spirit, manifested in a thousand different ways, from the monastic ideal, to the heroic celibacy of the clergy and religious, the Catholic hospitals, the sheer holiness of a Thomas a Kempis or a St. Ignatius and their great devotional books, countless saints - both canonized and as yet unknown and unsung, Mother Teresa, Pope John Paul II, Pope John XXIII, the early martyrs, St. Francis of Assisi, the events at Lourdes and Fatima, the dazzling intellect of John Henry Cardinal Newman, the wisdom and insight of Archbishop Fulton Sheen, St. John of the Cross, the sanctified wit of a Chesterton or a Muggeridge, elderly women doing the Stations of the Cross or the Rosary, Holy Hour, Benediction, kneeling - the list goes on and on. This devotional spirit is unmatched in its scope and deepness, despite many fine counterparts in Protestant and Orthodox spirituality.

:: D said @ 2:57 PM [+] ::
...

Okay, so I'm giddy, right? A ten (or thirteen?) minute chat with The Guy before work. And I actually got a name now. Thank goodness.

I got out of the car, kissed Dad goodbye. Crossed the street, and there he was. Leaning against the wall, with a covered papercup of tea to go. It's quarter to nine, and he was leaning against the wall. There was a series of lights on the wall to the entrance of the building, and it causes a lamplight effect over his head.

Honestly, in all my imagined film shots for the movie in my mind, I've had two for this guy. Amazing. I mean, it's not because he's cute.. it's not because I'm incredibly attracted to his smile, his overall look, his hot damn gorgeous accent.

Okay, the first setup was about three days ago, when I was leaving. I was texting May, twenty feet from him who was walking ahead. I thought he would go to the parking lot elevator.. but he walked past that. Then I thought he'd leave on the other exit (the one I don't pass through).. and he didn't. So I found out that we'd be using the same exit. Texting May in the pretense of, you know, 'not knowing he was there' when I knew full well that he was walking twenty feet ahead of me.

So, there were two people from the company who came in as I was leaving using the revolving doors. The second guy stopped near me and swiveled. I think he (The Guy) talked to him, or greeted him hello. The other guy turned around (the convo done, I think), and walked in. I heard EC yell (?). I looked up from my phone, saw him standing in the middle of the street (thank God it wasn't a busy hour). I looked back at the other guy, who had already walked in. Because naturally I assumed (since we technically didn't know each other.. haven't been introduced.. Hell, I officially didn't even know his name!) that he was calling for the other guy. No one. Then I turned back to him (EC) and he was wearing this huge great grin on his face. I think he said something like, "What, who did you think I was calling for?" (well, kung itatagalog mo lang naman, it went something like, "Feeling ka!". So, he was really addressing me. (Giddiness here)

Okay, before I ramble. I totally wish I had a camera to film the shot. I swear, I couldn't have set the scene better myself. He was standing on the middle of the turn-right service road, looking at me with this huge happy grin on his face. Honestly. It was an amazing screenshot, if nothing else.

And now I saw yet another amazing screenshot: lamplight on a marble wall. The guy leaning against the wall. Beige khaki and beige denim jacket. Holding a to-go cup of tea (tea! TEA! There's another tea-reference in my line of recent crushes, but I'll not expound here). I wish I had a camera. Or I'm going to use that image in my head to file for a story I'd make in the future. Honestly, I thought I'd only see scenes like that in TV shows and movies. You know, you don't ever see in real life.

But there it was.

Got out of the car, and I didn't see him at first. Well, there were about three guys standing in that lighted area, and he was the only one who looked like he had time to spare (the rest looked like they were waiting for taxis). Anyway, again, he had this huge smile on his face. It was infectious. I smiled back. Grinned, actually, and I walked to him.

"What are you doing here?"
"Nagpapahangin."
"Why not on the other side, where all the others are?" (I was referring to the other open lobby where everyone went to for cigarette breaks)
Shrug. "Nah. Too smoky over there"

Another wish granted: he didn't smoke. No wonder I don't see him with the smokers during our breaks.
I laughed. "You do realize that in this whole time we don't have each other's name." (Well, by process of elimination and eavesdropping, I deduced his name to either Sam or Hector.. the Hector courtesy of Emil. And I was in the pantry where he was, and Wes called my name out loud, so I know he'd have heard what my name was. But the point is, we haven't traded names, get?)

He looks inward. "Yeah"
"And so your name is-?"
"I'm Sam. And you are-?"
"Kit."
"Kit. Okay. I'm bound to ask your name again tomorrow, but I have to say I'm really bad with names"
"Right" (me with my disbelieving face)
"Really. I mean, I *know* you, just that I end up forgetting people's names. But I know your face"

Or something to that effect. Yesterday he called me "Hi cute" when we passed by each other in the hallway. To which I swiveled with this disbelieving/surprised look on my face, "What?" He looked like he was mentally slapping his head, "Uh, nothing" Daaamn.

The rest of the conversation's a blur, but these are what I got: he studied PT. He used to live in Antipolo, and would wake up at five in the morning to get to Tondo to where the hospital was. He was rotated (as with all interns), and because of the distance, he'd come home at eleven in the evening. Then wake up at five and do the whole thing all over again.

His sinuses act up when he smokes, so he doesn't anymore. He volunteered for the COMELEC sometime in the past (medical mission, maybe?), in my mom's province (Lord, please don't kill me by making my crush politically concerned.. Lord no), but the pay for volunteering was.. well, nothing, so he quit. He applied at a call center, and that got us to here. Sabi nya malakas daw syang uminom.. okay (I just hope he doesn't have a delicate system like Eman, who spills his literal and figurative guts when he's insanely drunk). He only takes a short jeep ride home, and he lives with cousins (Whee! There's a reason why I'm giddy about that.. but it's lodged in my primitive brain right now). His mom comes to Manila every two weeks, or twice a month ("Hello! You can afford that pala eh! Eh sus, ang yaman nyo pala eh" "Sila yun, no") And if the company opens a center in Cebu, he'd go there in a heartbeat.

He kept on offering me his tea, which he got from the cafeteria/coffee shop in the building. It's cute, and it's nice. He asked me when my off days were, and I found out when his off days were. We talked about work, what we're doing.. how my training's doing (very very well). He asked me if I had to go up asap, and I said that I'm not needed until nine, which is also his login time. So we'd look at our watches on and off (Him: "Do you need to go up?" Me: "Nah. It's okay" --hell. I'm not going to pass it up. To hell. I won't be regretful of something I didn't say or do at this occassion), and we stayed. Said the tea's cheaper, and he could take it to the floor, plus he could reheat. Five to nine, we had to go up. Walked to the elevator, I joked that "The bomb's in his coffee cup" with the guard who checked him for guns. To which he laughed.

Got off, we walked to the lockers.

"I guess I have to log on now."
"Yeah."
"I'll see you again.. Kit. I'm bound to forget" (apologetic-cute face)
"Sheesh. It's only three letters. Bye."

Saw him again twice today, but that was the highlight of my day. Thirteen minutes with the guy I've been obsessing about. And finally, finally getting a name. Damn I'm so smitten.

:: D said @ 8:51 PM [+] ::
...

So, go greet Lammy Happy Birthday on FF. On the Orlando Bloom board. We love you, darling.



Many happy returns to one of the best people I know. I owe you a letter, yeah, but hell. You'll get a novel-sized one in a couple of weeks, don't worry.

:: D said @ 6:55 PM [+] ::
...

Grabbed this from Envoy

PROPHETS AND PRIESTS [ Dwight Longenecker ]
A Balancing Act
9/15/2003 3:40:34 AM
Do you ever feel that your parish priest and the bishops do not appreciate the need for apologetics and evangelisation? Do you ever feel that the cutting edge apostolate you support is sidelined and ignored by the hierarchy and priests? Do you ever feel that the clergy are more interested in maintenance than mission?

I've been reflecting lately on the fact that the Old Testament model of ministry always combines the priestly and prophetic. The priests inherited their role. It wasn't an individualistic and charismatic calling. They maintained the temple worship, did the catechesis, performed the rites of passage and skimmed their bit off the top to support their families. They were establishment men. They knew how the system worked because it was their system.

The prophets, on the other hand, were the charismatic, fiery preachers. They had fire in their belly and fire in their words. They told it like it was. They suffered for their faith. They were outsiders, plain speakers, truth tellers. They did not compromise. They did not belong to the establishment. They were subversive. They were 'voices crying in the wilderness.'

I'm not talking about the ordained ministry here, but about 'priests' and 'prophets' as personality types. If you come to this weblog you are probably like me inasmuch as you are more for the prophets and are frustrated by the priests. But you know, there are plenty of 'priest types' who are just as frustrated and annoyed by the prophetic types. The prophets think the priests are dull, comprisers who will do anything for a peaceful life. The priests think the prophets are rabble rousers who will do anything to pick a fight.

In fact, both types are needed in the whole ministry of the church. The wise prophet realises that while there are corrupt, complacent and lazy priests there are good balanced 'priestly types' who steady the boat, keep the long view in sight and get on with the necessary, and sometimes dull work of maintenance. Likewise, the wise priest realises that although there are some loony, extreme and troublesome prophet types, there are also many who are filled with the fire of love, and who keep alive the Spirit of Christ in a powerful, charismatic and inspiring way.

The unwise priest will alienate and marginalise the prophets--seeing them as a threat. Unfortunately, this often drives the prophet from the church into schism, because the unwise prophet is always tempted to do things on his own, and follow his inner voice. An excellent example of how the two should work together is the relationship of Pope Innocent III and St Francis of Assissi. Pope Innocent was the priestly type who was temted to marginalise, persecute and expel the prophetic Francis. The charismatic Francis must have been was tempted to do things on his own, but Innocent in his wisdom, listened to Francis, and Francis in his wisdom, submitted to Innocent.

Both types are vital for the church to thrive. If we get frustrated with the dull priest types at times, remember they get frustrated with us too. If our reasons for being frustrated with them are good and valid, their reasons for being upset with us are probably also good and valid. We must be patient with one another, seeing the good in one another and always seeing how the mystery of the church is maintained by a dynamic balance between extremes that is not a compromise between the two, but a grateful embrace of both extremes at once.

:: D said @ 8:41 PM [+] ::
...

On other news, I was transferred to the inbound campaign. No more irate Americans, thank God.

:: D said @ 9:10 PM [+] ::
...

Sometimes I wonder about Audrey's cluelessness. Yes, that's her, Auds, May.

I mean, the chat's done and over with, and we're okay. Just that sometimes I wonder if she's really clueless by default or whatever. I know she means well, but it just comes off as pitying, sometimes even patronizing.

She asks me where I'm working, and I say call center. THEN she asks 'what agency'? HELLO? C-A-L-L C-E-N-T-E-R nga eh. Ergo, NOT ad agency, right?

She asks me why I'm not in an agency. And I get annoyed, right? Because I *can't* get into the industries that I want because I may be overqualified for the job I have right now, but dammit it pays BETTER than any other entry-level job here anywhere. And it's near-to-brainless work. You sit all day (or night, in my case) by the phone, answering queries. I have med benefits, and it's easy to get promoted if you play your cards right.

Do I get little nigglings of the devil sitting on my shoulder telling me that I could do better? Hell, yes. All the time. I'm more than a script to be recited, and more than a manual to remember. I'm more than that. But I don't have the luxury of going into 'dream' jobs because dream jobs demand little or no pay. The underlying theory being that since it's your 'dream' job, you'd be willing to live on virtually nothing. Everything's gratis.

Yes, Audrey. I want to get into advertising one day. Well, not directly. I'm more inclined towards communications/politics, or crisis/PR communications. Hell, I even want to go back to school. But that simply isn't in the cards right now. I'm the only one with a salary big enough to help things along at home. I so do not need you telling me

oo nga. pero after the call center thing, does it really give you a career path?

and

and besides kit, if you don't start on going into the nitty gritty of your communications skills, pano ka makakapunta sa pol-com? (how will you get into pol-com?)

I *know* that, Goddammit. And I *so* don't need to hear it from you, Miss I-hardly-see-you-enough-to-say-that-I-know-your-life. I have enough of that from my own little angel-and-devil whispering on my shoulder. I can take that from people close to me: my family, my close friends. Not you, who hardly pops up on AIM and hardly ever talks about anything else but your online bf.

So, I'm pissed.

:: D said @ 9:06 PM [+] ::
...

Fight Club!


What movie Do you Belong in?(many different outcomes!)
brought to you by Quizilla


Everyone remembers the 'faked-orgasm-in-a-deli'
sequence from your kind of movie When Harry Met
Sally. It seems that you're falling for a buddy
or have already fallen for them. Uh-oh. You're
probably caught between the possibility of
having a great relationship and wrecking the
one you have now. You know what they say, it's
better to regret something you did than
something you didn't do.


What Romance Movie Best Represents Your Love Life?
brought to you by Quizilla

:: D said @ 9:56 PM [+] ::
...

9/11

I read Rezie's LJ today and I remembered.

Hell, how did I forget?

In commemoration of the 9/11 World Trade Center attack.

Granted, I live in the other side of the world, a whole ocean away with no relatives in New York and no friends who live there except some vague co-posters from FF, and RU and other boards.

I remember it being a normal day. September 8, our house was robbed, so we were using the small TV at home with a faulty antenna. The house still felt violated and we were still in shock. We came home from school/work, etc. Meg texts me telling me that the WTC got hit. Then she calls me up, her voice rising as she watched a live feed from cable TV (the TV with cable got stolen), telling me that they hit the second tower. Meg told me about the first hit, and the first thing that came to mind was Oh God, terrorists. I couldn't believe how long it took for people to actually NAME that it was a terrorist attack.

Once may be a horrible accident. But two?

Thank God for the finance channel, which is the only cable channel that our antenna was able to snag. We somehow saw some footage of the thing happening. Thing is, it was looped over and over and over.. it was horrifying. Such big buildings like that, used by civilians, falling over. I can only imagine at that moment how many people died at the impact.. how many people were hostaged in the airplanes and their last moments..

Civilians.

Hit Pearl Harbor, and that's a military attack. You're hitting soldiers, men who defend their country. We're not even in a state of war. There wasn't any threat. And they didn't even use outright military tools and machinery: they used civilian airplanes and hit civilian targets. The magnitude is just overwhelming.

We wake up to the sobering reality that evil, hatred, prejudice and intolerance comes in small insidious packages. It doesn't show up in legions of people, masses of soldiers wearing one uniform and walking under one flag pointing a nuke at a neighboring country. It could be the kid you picked on at school who grew up wanting to shoot his childhood bullies. It could be the guy you sat next to on the bus. It could be that mousy haired girl who just kept to herself all day long.

What kind of mind takes a leap of faith to proclaim that the 'other' is evil, different, the spawn of the devil? What kind of mind is willing to go so far as killing innocents under the banner of a cause that hides itself once the deed is done? If you want to fight, fight. Go out and live your beliefs. Don't hide the moment you've accomplished your mission. What kind of cause is it that uses military tactics on civilian targets? What kind of heirarchy is it that tells it's followers to strap a bomb to their chests and walk into a crowded dance floor to set it off? For what cause? For what purpose? Why? It's the height of cowardice.

It's been two years, and there are some things that are different, and there are things that are the same (paraphrasing Leo). Where do you start?

What's amazing is that at the sticking point, the human spirit prevails. Never mind that America (and Americans) is both envied and hated in varying degrees around the world (hell, a couple of weeks after the tragedy, we hear grumblings saying that they deserved what happened). That's not the point. Side by side with the tragedies are the stories of heroism, there, and around the world.

In my own world, I check in online with my friends. I try hard to remember if I have relatives, friends, who live there. My cousins live in California. Lammy lives there.. check. There are a couple of Arrows in NJ (Kimble!), and a few of my friends who live in Canada's Eastern side. Everywhere on FF are check-in threads for people, looking for fellow posters if they're okay. The Gazers lost one poster due to the tragedy (she didn't die, thank God. She just wanted to.. retire from posting, after the tragedy).

It's easier if the Enemy were someone concrete: like Hitler. We have a face, a flag, a country to hate. A target. We could all turn our collective consciousness on that one thing. Right now we still don't know the answers, who's the mastermind.. what really is the driving force behind all this incoherence. It's easier if we were to shoot one shark in the ocean. What we have instead is a lot of little sharks working independently, working in little groups.. living as civilians even.

:: D said @ 9:24 PM [+] ::
...

which stereotype are you?



what kind of junkie are you?



which groupmember are you?



what color are you?

My inner child is sixteen years old!

Life's not fair! It's never been fair, but while
adults might just accept that, I know
something's gotta change. And it's gonna
change, just as soon as I become an adult and
get some power of my own.


How Old is Your Inner Child?
brought to you by Quizilla

:: D said @ 12:53 PM [+] ::
...

First of all, I don't appreciate people putting their nose into my family life. Yes, I know that times are hard. And yes, I know that Dad's a freelance architect. Yes, I know that I make a lot of money from work, and Chi's working as well. I don't need that constant reminder from people who should know better still telling me the obvious. I don't need people telling me You know, Kit, since you're already working, it's your duty to help out in the house blah blah. I know that, dammit. It's in my blood. I don't resent it. It's just something you do. It's something I've known I'd do. God knows I'm already no help when it comes to the domestic stuff.

So it comes as no surprise that I'm supremely annoyed with Amor (yes, that's her name) comes over to visit Mom and tells me that exact script. Sure, maybe she means well. And she thinks that she's good friends with Mom. But Goddamn it, I just SO do not need another pitying reminder of how I'm working and I should help out with the finances at home. Because that's what I do already. I don't need a reminder of the fact that sometimes my salary's the only thing keeping the utility bills paid, and the groceries bought.

What the fuck.

This is a spillover of my temper since yesterday. When Mom and Dad went back to their awful childish ways. That's an understatement, because once you're an adult, tantrums become frustrations and words that you use become verbal swords and daggers. I'm not sure if they know how awful it is to hear, when they pick a word war with each other and they don't even bother to hide it. It happened two years ago, and I thought we'd gotten past that.

But no. This time, it's Dad acting up. Looks like Male Menopause actually does work. And Mom hasn't finished with hers (honestly, does it *ever* end? It's been going on for almost the past fucking decade). So you can imagine what an explosion it was to witness. In the dining room, no less.

So, I left the house. Granted, I already did have something to do, because my VCD supplier promised to send me the rest of Alias season 2 after lunch in Megamall. And I was gonna meet up with Summer at 3 to get his resume to pass for the office. But it was ten in the morning and I wasn't expecting to leave the house till twelve. But I recognize the trouble brewing and I wasn't in the mood to wade in and try to defuse it. Instead, I made a few yelling words of my own and dressed up. I was even able to manage to calmly powder my face at the dining table while my parents were facing off. Then, I left the house.

I refused to cry. I was so pissed that just the thought coming to my head was ruthlessly fought back. I was more angry than them that I didn't even consider crying about it. Instead, I turned on my walkman up loud and headed for the mall.

Dad texts me in transit telling me that he was sorry, and if we could meet somewhere. I'm pretty fed up with all the bullshit and I'm thisclose to being fed up with being his therapist. He's apologizing to me, when he's just had a fight with his wife. He's concerned about apologizing to ME?!? Someone has his priorities screwed, and screwed twice over.

Houki, the vid girl, couldn't make it. So I got to Megamall about ten thirty and bummed out in PowerBooks. I grabbed a couple of books and magazines and wasted time. Seeing as May had stuff to do, I couldn't nag her to come over as well. Which is good, come to think of it, since I had time to myself and I don't think I would've tolerated light talk at that time.

Stayed in Mega till two, and I went to the pretzel place that the old group used to hang out in. Bought a Nora Roberts book to browse while waiting for Summer to arrive. Sat at the usual couch, which was a tremendous relief, given that my day simply didn't start out well. Little things give assurance.

So that's the funk. Let's get on with the rest of yesterday.

Sum got there at about three ten (what can I say? We're both sticklers for punctuality). He grew his hair long, and dammit, it was even nicer than mine. And it's all natural (rolling eyes here). He went back with his errand boyfriend, Paul. Got joined up with the Spirit Questors, and updated me on what's happened in his office, and with JP and Marj. And Summer gave me a bracelet with purple beads, because he remembered me. Damn, I forgot to bring a carnation. Next time.

I don't know. He asked me what's been going on with my life. I couldn't get into detail with my family and why I had been out of the house since ten, and we were supposed to meet at three. And I don't say much, but I ask a lot about what's happened with Summer. Weird. I wasn't withholding information, just that.. I didn't volunteer info, you know?

Anyway, after two hours of tea (orange spice), and four or five sticks of cigarettes (his. I don't smoke), we opted to go to the ukay ukay a couple of blocks away that he'd just discovered. I was wearing bad shoes. They were Chi's, and they were strappy sandals. It's 24 hours later and I still feel the aftereffects of that particular podiatric disaster. Blisters. Argh.

I got myself a new jacket thing. Pretty cheap, and it looked nice. I was jealous of what he got, however, a velvet brown coat thing that you wouldn't be able to find cheap just anywhere. I swear, if he had just placed it somewhere, I'dve grabbed it and paid for it myself.

I really didn't want to go home and face the parents, please lang. But I had to. I told Mom in advance that I'd be eating dinner there, just that they should go ahead. I got us a video of The Princess Diaries, maybe for a Sunday night viewing. Thank God Dad wasn't there when I got home, and Mom had a meeting for our village board. I got home, drank some water, dumped the few groceries Mom asked me to buy, peeled off my clothes and flopped facedown on my bed.

Mother Mary's Birthday

It's September 8. Happy Birthday Mother Mary


by William Bouguereau

Incidentally, this is also the anniversary of the day our house got ransacked and we lost nearly everything valuable in the house. Good thing the ref's so big that they couldn't wedge it out of the gates. And that the kitchen sink's rooted to the floor. Otherwise, they took everything else.

And me and the kids were two hours away from seeing that, had we gone home early. God knows if they were armed or not.

Makes you remember all the things that are really important, eh?

:: D said @ 7:44 PM [+] ::
...