The "L" in the TULIP acronym of Reformed Theology stands for Limited Atonement, which the Pocket Dictionary of Theological Terms defines as : > Sometimes called 'particular redemption,' the view that Jesus' death > secured salvation for only a limited number of persons (the elect), > in contrast to the idea that the work of the cross is intended for all > humankind (as in “unlimited atonement”). This view resulted from the > post-Reformation development of the doctrine of election in Calvinist > circles. Proponents claim that because not everyone is saved, God > could not have intended that Christ die for everyone. We already have a question asking for the Biblical basis **for** Limited Atonement , so my question is what is the Biblical argument **against** Limited Atonement?

THE CLOSET VERSE REGARDING TRINITY IN THE BIBLE HAS BEEN THROWN OUT . The Verse in the Bible which is closest to Trinity and is often quoted by Christian missionaries is first Epistle of John Chapter 5 Verse 7 ... "**For there are three that bear record in heaven, the father, the word and holy ghost; and these three are one**" In the Revised Standard Version of the Bible, revised by 32 Christian Scholars of the highest eminence backed by 50 different cooperating denominations, this verse which is the keystone of the Christian faith has been removed as an interpolation, as a fabrication, as a concoction. According to them this verse does not exist in the original manuscripts, therby eliminating another lie from the English R.S.V... P. S : You can't have a word of God being corrupted like that?? Do you?

By an [Occam's razor](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor) interpretation of 1 Samuel 28, I mean an interpretation that is as straightforward as possible, which doesn't require making unnecessary assumptions or special pleadings in the way the passage is interpreted. For example, if the author says literally and plainly that "X happened", well, the straightforward interpretation is that X happened and that's it. Applying this to 1 Samuel 28 ESV (pay attention to the bold text): > In those days the Philistines gathered their forces for war, to fight against Israel. And Achish said to David, “Understand that you and your men are to go out with me in the army.” 2 David said to Achish, “Very well, you shall know what your servant can do.” And Achish said to David, “Very well, I will make you my bodyguard for life.” > > 3 **Now Samuel had died**, and all Israel had mourned for him and buried him in Ramah, his own city. And Saul had put the mediums and the necromancers out of the land. 4 The Philistines assembled and came and encamped at Shunem. And Saul gathered all Israel, and they encamped at Gilboa. 5 When Saul saw the army of the Philistines, he was afraid, and his heart trembled greatly. 6 And when Saul inquired of the Lord, the Lord did not answer him, either by dreams, or by Urim, or by prophets. 7 Then Saul said to his servants, “Seek out for me a woman who is a medium, that I may go to her and inquire of her.” And his servants said to him, “Behold, there is a medium at En-dor.” > > 8 So Saul disguised himself and put on other garments and went, he and two men with him. And they came to the woman by night. And he said, “Divine for me by a spirit and bring up for me whomever I shall name to you.” 9 The woman said to him, “Surely you know what Saul has done, how he has cut off the mediums and the necromancers from the land. Why then are you laying a trap for my life to bring about my death?” 10 But Saul swore to her by the Lord, “As the Lord lives, no punishment shall come upon you for this thing.” 11 Then the woman said, “Whom shall I bring up for you?” **He said, “Bring up Samuel for me.”** 12 **When the woman saw Samuel**, she cried out with a loud voice. And the woman said to Saul, “Why have you deceived me? You are Saul.” 13 The king said to her, “Do not be afraid. What do you see?” And the woman said to Saul, “I see a god coming up out of the earth.” 14 He said to her, “What is his appearance?” And she said, “An old man is coming up, and he is wrapped in a robe.” **And Saul knew that it was Samuel, and he bowed with his face to the ground and paid homage**. > > 15 **Then Samuel said to Saul**, “Why have you disturbed me by bringing me up?” Saul answered, “I am in great distress, for the Philistines are warring against me, and God has turned away from me and answers me no more, either by prophets or by dreams. Therefore I have summoned you to tell me what I shall do.” 16 **And Samuel said**, “Why then do you ask me, since the Lord has turned from you and become your enemy? 17 The Lord has done to you as he spoke by me, for the Lord has torn the kingdom out of your hand and given it to your neighbor, David. 18 Because you did not obey the voice of the Lord and did not carry out his fierce wrath against Amalek, therefore the Lord has done this thing to you this day. 19 Moreover, the Lord will give Israel also with you into the hand of the Philistines, and tomorrow you and your sons shall be with me. The Lord will give the army of Israel also into the hand of the Philistines.” > > 20 Then Saul fell at once full length on the ground, filled with fear because of **the words of Samuel**. And there was no strength in him, for he had eaten nothing all day and all night. 21 And the woman came to Saul, and when she saw that he was terrified, she said to him, “Behold, your servant has obeyed you. I have taken my life in my hand and have listened to what you have said to me. 22 Now therefore, you also obey your servant. Let me set a morsel of bread before you; and eat, that you may have strength when you go on your way.” 23 He refused and said, “I will not eat.” But his servants, together with the woman, urged him, and he listened to their words. So he arose from the earth and sat on the bed. 24 Now the woman had a fattened calf in the house, and she quickly killed it, and she took flour and kneaded it and baked unleavened bread of it, 25 and she put it before Saul and his servants, and they ate. Then they rose and went away that night. Assuming that 1 Samuel 28 is inspired text and that the author is telling us about events as they actually happened, a straightforward interpretation of the passage reveals the following facts: - Samuel was already dead (v3) - Saul asked the medium to invoke Samuel (v11) - The medium saw Samuel (v12) - Saul was convinced that it was Samuel (v14) - Samuel spoke to Saul (v15, v16) - The words that were spoken were from Samuel (v20) As we can see, the author is telling us, literally and plainly, that Samuel spoke to Saul. An Occam's razor interpretation of this passage should therefore lead us to conclude that, if the author is telling us that Samuel spoke to Saul (even though he was already dead), then, well, Samuel spoke to Saul. As simple as that. That's literally, unambiguously stated in the text. And keep in mind that this is not a Parable or other kind of passage full of symbolic language that would warrant having second thoughts on the meaning of words. ### Question According to 'soul sleep' adherents, what's wrong with this straightforward approach to 1 Samuel chapter 28? If the author is telling us that "X happened", what's wrong with concluding that "X happened"? If this "Occam's razor" interpretation of 1 Samuel 28 is not justified, are there any other examples of non-parabolic, non-symbolic passages in which a similar straightforward interpretation is not justified? Is there a hermeneutical principle that justifies not always being straightforward in our interpretation of a non-symbolic, non-parabolic passage?

Did St. Rose of Lima (✝1617)—called the Patroness of the Americas and the 1st canonized saint of the Americas—know about (or have a devotion to) Our Lady of Guadalupe (1531), called the Empress of the Americas (*Emperatriz de las Américas* )?

I hope one of you can answer a theological question I have! My question is: how are sins of thought, and sins depicted in media, distinguished by species/kind? As an example: let’s imagine a person watched a horror movie that had graphic scenes of murder and torture. Since those are two distinct ‘species’, or ‘kinds’ of sin in real life, are they also distinct sins when consumed through media? And my question is the same in regard to sins of thought: as an example, let’s say a person indulged impure thoughts. Is their species, or kind, simply a ‘lustful thought’? Or are they distinguished by the thoughts’ contents (ex. Adultery, rape, etc.)? Those are just two examples, but my question pertains to all instances where thoughts, or media consumption, are sinful. This question is also important in regards to the sacrament of Confession. As Catholics, we are obliged to confess our mortal sins in “number and kind”—how are these sins distinguished by “kind”, so we know how to properly confess them (in the event they are mortally sinful)? Is there any church teaching or definite answer on this matter that you can reference? Thank you and may God bless you all!

I find the Catholic title "Mother of God" for the Virgin Mary confusing. It is clear that she was the mother of Jesus, the Son. But the title suggests (indeed, not literally, but still) that Mary is mother of God as a Trinity. Is that correct? If so, it creates the problem that a human (or is there reason to say that Mary wasn't (entirely) human?) gave birth to God, while God created mankind. This problem doesn't exist when Mary is only mother of Jesus, because then it could be merely a way of speaking to say that Mary was the one through whom the Word became flesh, which would be the Protestant view as described in https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/15779/5729

I am an Assemblies of God protestant and am very close friends with a catholic girl. Would cross denominational marriage like this be a good idea? I know that the bible says to not be unequally yoked. But my relationship with her is literally shaking all of what I thought I've known as sure facts in my beliefs. Have any cross denominational marriages worked out in the past? What does the bible have to say about cross denominational marriages?

The "Clarity Principle" ensures a message be told clearly without any iota of confusion or ambiguity. It seems Jesus' alleged divinity claims (that were forcefully attributed to him) don't follow that principal, which is quite highly unlikely of God to do. If Jesus was God, there would have been non metaphorical verses in the Bible clearly stating Jesus was God, but we find 0. What does this signify? Why did God have to be so shy and hesitant in claiming his divinity that he didn't once order in clear cut non ambiguous terms or told his folks to worship him? P. S : Kindly don't refer to metaphorical verses of Bible that in no case seem convincing enough to be deemed as monotonous when related to other verses or read in full context

In Romans 3:8, Paul teaches that it is wrong to do evil to achieve good: > And why not say—as we are accused and as some claim we say—that we should do evil that good may come of it? Their penalty is what they deserve. This principle is explicitly reaffirmed by the Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 1789 . However, in Catholicism, a distinction is drawn between *physical evil* and *moral evil*. "Physical evil" is what St. Thomas Aquinas would call "corruption* and defect" ("*corruptio et defectus*"), corruption being the change from existence to non-existence.**
*cf. "What are “generation and corruption” in Aristotle's philosophy? "
\*\**Summa contra Gentiles* III cap. 71 ("That divine providence does not entirely exclude evil from things") **According to Catholicism, is it ever permissible to produce physical evil so that good may result?** My understanding is that the answer is yes. For example, when performing a medical surgery, it is acceptable for the surgeon to intentionally damage the patient's skin (physical evil) as a means to saving the patient's life (a good end). I want to make sure I'm thinking about this correctly. I would most appreciate answers drawing on quotes from the Magisterium, but I'd also appreciate relevant quotes from Catholic theologians.

I previously posed the question https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/101219/61679 , an [answer](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/101246/61679) to which contended that one doesn't need to rely on Biblical inerrancy or a specific exegetical method to assert a young Earth. Instead, it suggested that the purportedly ample scientific evidence is enough to support this conclusion. To substantiate its position, the linked answer cited the article titled [The 10 Best Evidences from Science That Confirm a Young Earth](https://answersingenesis.org/evidence-for-creation/10-best-evidences-young-earth/) published on Answers in Genesis. The article opens by asserting the following: > The earth is only a few thousand years old. That’s a fact, plainly revealed in God’s Word. So we should expect to find plenty of evidence for its youth. And that’s what we find—in the earth’s geology, biology, paleontology, and even astronomy. > > Literally hundreds of dating methods could be used to attempt an estimate of the earth’s age, and the vast majority of them point to a much younger earth than the 4.5 billion years claimed by secularists. The following series of articles presents what Answers in Genesis researchers picked as the ten best scientific evidences that contradict billions of years and confirm a relatively young earth and universe. The article then proceeds to list ten lines of evidence supporting a young Earth: 1. [Very Little Sediment on the Seafloor](https://answersingenesis.org/geology/sedimentation/1-very-little-sediment-on-the-seafloor/) 2. [Bent Rock Layers](https://answersingenesis.org/geology/rock-layers/2-bent-rock-layers/) 3. [Soft Tissue in Fossils](https://answersingenesis.org/fossils/3-soft-tissue-in-fossils/) 4. [Faint Sun Paradox](https://answersingenesis.org/astronomy/sun/4-faint-sun-paradox/) 5. [Rapidly Decaying Magnetic Field](https://answersingenesis.org/evidence-for-creation/5-rapidly-decaying-magnetic-field/) 6. [Helium in Radioactive Rocks](https://answersingenesis.org/age-of-the-earth/6-helium-in-radioactive-rocks/) 7. [Carbon-14 in Fossils, Coal, and Diamonds](https://answersingenesis.org/geology/carbon-14/7-carbon-14-in-fossils-coal-and-diamonds/) 8. [Short-Lived Comets](https://answersingenesis.org/astronomy/comets/8-short-lived-comets/) 9. [Very Little Salt in the Sea](https://answersingenesis.org/evidence-for-creation/9-very-little-salt-in-the-sea/) 10. [DNA in “Ancient” Bacteria](https://answersingenesis.org/natural-selection/antibiotic-resistance/10-dna-in-ancient-bacteria/) Are there published responses from Old-Earth Creationists and/or Theistic Evolutionists addressing the Young-Earth Creationist interpretation of these ten lines of evidence? I'm particularly interested in understanding why OEC and TE advocates do not find the scientific evidence presented by YEC advocates compelling. References to books or other authoritative publications are welcomed (and encouraged).

Where to read about: Church Fathers discussing the unwritten traditions of the church before year 400 AD. I read that Epiphanius of Salamis has said something about the unwritten traditions in his book - Ancoratus I found this https://dokumen.pub/ancoratus-0813225914-9780813225913.html But I can not find something relevant in this book by searching by keywords. Do you know other church fathers discussing the unwritten traditions and the explanations about these unwritten traditions before 400 AD? Thanks in advance. ---------------------- **Looking to find answers on these traditions and more, from ancient writers:** Both catholic and orthodox may be in strange position for some of these traditiosns. What can be the explanations. 1. The catholics with the **Clerical celibacy**. Is this apostolic unwritten traditions that the apostles taught 2 Thes. 2:15; Peter was married Matt. 8:14-15; 1 Corinthians 9:5-7; Also 1 Titus 1:6-9; Timothy 3:2-5; 2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife.... About forbidding marriages 1 Timothy 4:1-3; The catholic teaching of the Clerical celibacy seems not to align with scripture or I may not understand it properly, please correct me if I am wrong, not sure how to understand this. If the scripture say Timothy 3:2-5; If this is not apostolic teaching, how can I be 100% sure that the other claimed unwritten traditions are apostolic teachings? Since while researching I learn that there are indeed traditions in the churches that are not apostolic, even borrowed from older pagan traditions like the halo on the icons. 3. Leavened or Unleavened Bread - which one is apostolic and who evt. changed the apostolic tradition and when? As far as I know catholic and orthodox condemn each other on this. 4. If Purgatory is apostolic traditions why do Eastern Orthodox do not accept it? Did ancient writers from East or West mentioned it? Both churches claim to accept "the unwritten traditions" of the apostles. 5. Orthodox do not accept - (Original Sin) but accept Augustine since he is mentioned in ecumenical councils. This is also strange, accepting the person as church father, but not accepting his teachings. 6. Saturday fasting - Orthodox do not do it, if I am not wrong they condemn it. Is this apostolic tradition? 7. Filioque - the original Creed did not include it, it is known to be later addition, so this can not be directly said to be apostolic, also I do not find it in the scripture, even that I have heard, some protestants claim that. The other strange thing is that, Augustine seems to have the filioque and again the orthodox accept him because he was accepted in some of the ecumenical councils, but reject some of his teachings.

Can somebody explain to me the Catholic view of Transubstantiation and why it is important? Because with my understanding of it, the priests pray over the bread and wine and it turns into the literal blood and body of Jesus, but still looks the same. I know that in Matthew 26:26-29 it says about Jesus saying that the bread and wine was his body and blood but I thought that that was meant in a metaphorical sense. If the bread and the wine does actually turn into the body and the blood of Jesus, what difference does that make compared to a protestant's communion other than the reverence you would give or any of the rituals done. As a Pentacostal we celebrate communion in my church; drinking grape juice and eating crackers in remembrance of What Jesus did for us. I'm not opposed to other views on the matter, I'm just curious.

I am looking for the name of the cathedral that contains the following mural. What I know for sure is: - That it has been done between 2004 and 2008, more likely in 2008. - It was made in a Catholic cathedral of a Spanish speaking country. - The original file name is "2B CS.jpg" What I think I know is: - It was a city in Latin America. - The city is on or near the seashore.

Is it true that some of the Catholic saints did not exist at all? I am told that St. George with the dragon did not exist at all! Thanks.

My daughter has only six months at best left on the Earth. A very happy time of her childhood was spent with the Salvation Army as a child. A part of her life we didn’t share. She is consumed by a song that she sung at a talent quest at Sunday school and would love to hear it again. She’s in her 20’s so I imagine it would be an 80’s or 90’s song. I’ve googled the lyrics and searched everywhere to no avail. Who sung it and where could I find a copy? This is as far as she can remember: > Dear god why is your book full of thous and thees Do you hear my prayer when I bend my knees Do you live in a steeple or with some other people These are things that I’ve been wondering > > Do you have to squeeze to get in my heart If you ever sneezed would I fall apart Is heaven full of money or just some milk and honey These are things that I’ve been wondering > > Can you answer all my questions Even if I’m not grown up Can you give me some suggestions How to get as smart as you are. > > Dear god. Sometimes I just wonder about stuff like this

The Book [Zealot: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth](https://www.amazon.com/Zealot-Reza-Aslan-audiobook/dp/B00DYMLQEU/) by Reza Aslan argues that Jesus was actually a Zealot, a Jewish revolutionary attempting to challenge Roman rule. Christians will overwhelmingly reject this hypothesis, but I think the book may help us in some ways to understand the human side of Jesus and is very well argued. I would like to see answers about what readers learned from the book. Those who only saw reviews and excerpts are welcome to answer too, but please provide evidence, not just opinions. Aslan sees Jesus as attempting to fulfill the Zealots' hope for the Jewish messiah, who would re-establish his people's independence from Rome and become the literal king of the Jews. In other words, Jesus actually attempted to do what the Roman government executed him for. Writes [Gary Manning Jr. of the Talbot School of Theology](https://www.biola.edu/blogs/good-book-blog/2013/a-response-to-zealot-by-reza-aslan) : > [Aslan claims that] ...like other messianic figures of his day [Jesus] > called for the violent expulsion of Rome from Israel. Driven by > religious zeal, Jesus believed that God would empower him to become > the king of Israel and overturn the hierarchical social order. Jesus > believed that God would honor the zeal of his lightly armed disciples > and give them victory. Instead, Jesus was crucified as a > revolutionary. Early Christians changed the story of Jesus to make him > into a peaceful shepherd. They did this for two reasons: because > Jesus’ actual prediction had failed, and because the Roman destruction > of rebellious Jerusalem in AD 70 made Jesus’ real teachings both > dangerous and unpopular. Paul radically changed the identity of Jesus > from human rebel to divine Son of God, against the wishes of other > leaders like Peter and James. This summary is basically accurate. However, I found important food for thought in the book: - Why does the angel tell Mary the "Lord God will give to him the throne of his father David, and he will reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there will be no end. - Why does Zechariah prophesy of that: "[God] has raised up a horn of salvation for us in the house of his servant David, that we should be saved from our enemies, and from the hand of all who hate us... (Luke 1) - Why did Jesus begin his ministry in Nazareth by quoting Isaiah to the effect he had been sent to "set at liberty those who are oppressed"? (Luke 40) - Why did he say "I came not for peace but the sword?" (Matthew 10:34) - What was Simon the Zealot doing with Jesus if he was still a Zealot? - Why did Jesus use violence against the moneychangers at the same time that there was an insurrection going on led by Barabbas - Was it just a coincidence that Jesus was imprisoned with these revolutionaries? - Why did he tell his disciples to bring swords to the Garden of Gethsemane? (Luke 22:38) I found myself thinking deeply about the human side of Jesus while reading this book. Particularly, it gave me a possible insight into Jesus' agony in the Garden of Gethsemane and on the Cross. Did part of him pray so desperately that God would "let this cup pass" because he hoped to fulfill the prophecies of a Davidic messiah who would literally restore David's throne? Did Jesus tell his disciples to brig swords to the Garden to protect him from those who would come to arrest him? Did the disciples commit a providential error when they fell asleep? When he cried out "why have you forsaken me?" was he still, even at that moment, hoping that God would rescue him so that he could fight on? Personally I do not think that Jesus was a Zealot, but I do think that he might have had hopes to be the Jewish messiah in some sense. Those hopes, of course, could not be fulfilled if Jesus were to realize God's will that he act as the Suffering Servant. But they might have figured into to the human aspirations he had to leave behind at Gethsemane, and even on the Cross. **What other questions does Aslan's book raise for us, and what insights can we gain from reading his book, whether we agree with it or not?**

The relationship between God's foreknowledge (or omniscience) and the free will of humans seems to be a complicated topic where multiple positions exist. Regardless of my position (which you can read about here: https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/101932/how-do-non-open-theists-reason-a-basis-for-free-will and https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/101985/how-would-an-open-theist-explain-that-gods-exhaustive-foreknowledge-would-lead) I think it would be helpful to have an overview of all the various positions that arose (including Open Theism). The main questions I have for each position would be: - How do they imagine God's foreknowledge works? - Is God's foreknowledge exhaustive or limited? - What are the biggest biblical arguments they put forward? - Do humans have "free will" and if so, how does it work? - Do they avoid Fatalism/Predeterminism? If so how?

I've enjoyed reading Wesley's writings, but I'm struggling to find a decent account of Methodist systematics. Can anyone suggest anything notably Methodist in flavour or should I just pick up something by a mildly dissident Anglican?

In passages describing the resurrection and the return of Christ, angels are sometimes described as gathering people. For example, Gospel of Matthew 24:31 says that the Son of Man will send His angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather His elect from the four winds. Meanwhile, First Epistle to the Thessalonians 4:16–17 describes the dead in Christ rising first, followed by the living believers being caught up. My question is: **Are angels described in scripture as gathering the dead in Christ from their graves, the living believers from the earth, or both?**

In the Liturgy of the hours I found a very strange text that looks like heresy to me. It is written by Tertullian, who actually joined the Montanists. This text is really confusing. To me the text sounds like "personal prayer, not Mass, is the new form of sacrifice". I dont know what he is saying at all. I have been told that Mass is the new sacrifice. I read this text as if he was saying Mass isn't even important. What is he saying in this text and why is included in the Liturgy of the hours? Second Reading From the treatise On Prayer by Tertullian: priest: The spiritual offering of prayer >Prayer is the offering in spirit that has done away with the sacrifices of old. What good do I receive from the multiplicity of your sacrifices? asks God. I have had enough of burnt offerings of rams, and I do not want the fat of lambs and the blood of bulls and goats. Who has asked for these from your hands? >What God has asked for we learn from the Gospel. The hour will come, he says, when true worshippers will worship the Father in spirit and in truth. God is a spirit, and so he looks for worshippers who are like himself. >We are true worshippers and true priests. We pray in spirit, and so offer in spirit the sacrifice of prayer. Prayer is an offering that belongs to God and is acceptable to him: it is the offering he has asked for, the offering he planned as his own. >We must dedicate this offering with our whole heart, we must fatten it on faith, tend it by truth, keep it unblemished through innocence and clean through chastity, and crown it with love. We must escort it to the altar of God in a procession of good works to the sound of psalms and hymns. Then it will gain for us all that we ask of God. >Since God asks for prayer offered in spirit and in truth, how can he deny anything to this kind of prayer? How great is the evidence of its power, as we read and hear and believe. >Of old, prayer was able to rescue from fire and beasts and hunger, even before it received its perfection from Christ. How much greater then is the power of Christian prayer. No longer does prayer bring an angel of comfort to the heart of a fiery furnace, or close up the mouths of lions, or transport to the hungry food from the fields. No longer does it remove all sense of pain by the grace it wins for others. But it gives the armour of patience to those who suffer, who feel pain, who are distressed. It strengthens the power of grace, so that faith may know what it is gaining from the Lord, and understand what it is suffering for the name of God. >In the past prayer was able to bring down punishment, rout armies, withhold the blessing of rain. Now, however, the prayer of the just turns aside the whole anger of God, keeps vigil for its enemies, pleads for persecutors. Is it any wonder that it can call down water from heaven when it could obtain fire from heaven as well? Prayer is the one thing that can conquer God. But Christ has willed that it should work no evil, and has given it all power over good. >Its only art is to call back the souls of the dead from the very journey into death, to give strength to the weak, to heal the sick, to exorcise the possessed, to open prison cells, to free the innocent from their chains. Prayer cleanses from sin, drives away temptations, stamps out persecutions, comforts the fainthearted, gives new strength to the courageous, brings travellers safely home, calms the waves, confounds robbers, feeds the poor, overrules the rich, lifts up the fallen, supports those who are falling, sustains those who stand firm. >All the angels pray. Every creature prays. Cattle and wild beasts pray and bend the knee. As they come from their barns and caves they look out to heaven and call out, lifting up their spirit in their own fashion. The birds too rise and lift themselves up to heaven: they open out their wings, instead of hands, in the form of a cross, and give voice to what seems to be a prayer. >What more need be said on the duty of prayer? Even the Lord himself prayed. To him be honour and power for ever and ever. Amen.