text:
Suppose a sequence of analytic maps $f_n: \mathbb{D} \to \mathbb{D}$ from the unit disk to itself, each of which is a topological covering map to its image, converges locally uniformly to an analytic map $f$. Under what conditions will the limit $f$ also be a topological covering map to its image? (I am also interested in other possibilites for domain and range of the $f_n$.)
Using Rouche's theorem, one can show that the local uniform limit of injective analytic functions is again injective, provided that the limit is not constant. One thing I would like to know is if a similar result holds if we replace "injective" with "covering map".
This sort of question comes up if you try to prove the uniformization theorem in the special case of a plane domain $U\subset \mathbb{C}$.


text:
For our math lectures I have been hard-coding paragraphs like
\paragraph*{Definition 1.1.1 (foo)}
\paragraph*{Example 1.1.2}
\paragraph*{Proposition 1.1.3}
and I want to create new commands like
\theorem, ... which create such paragraphs and handle the numbering. Every command is nested in a subsection, if you need to know.
Any specific idea what would be the best?

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Which one is it really: hear hear or here here? Where does the saying really come from?
Sign up
- Anybody can ask a question
- Anybody can answer
- The best answers are voted up and rise to the top
It's "Hear! Hear!" which comes from "Hear him! Hear him!"
"Hear him! Hear him!"
"Hear him! Hear him!" was referred to in Debates in Parliament in 1688, and from the context it's clear it was a commonly heard phrase at the time.
Seymour continues, and is followed by:
"Hear! Hear!"
A interesting non-parliamentary use of "hear, hear" can be found in a 1770 A Letter to Lord Mansfield. A North Briton Extraordinary:
Note the parenthetic interjections to the quoted text:
Originally from 1772 is what looks to be a satire on parliament in The Batchelor: or Speculations of Jeoffry Wagstaffe, Esq, Volume 3 that shows a transitional "hear, hear him":
Finally, in 1777 is an actual transcription of "Hear! Hear!" in The Parliamentary register: or, History of the Proceedings and Debates of the House of Commons:
It's "hear, hear". Both Wikipedia and phrases.org.uk cite its origin as the UK Parliament. From the former:
The phrase is properly "Hear, hear", since you want everyone to hear what's being said.
Nonetheless, the eggcorn "Here, here" is so common that it may actually be eclipsing the original version.
I think we can dismiss the biblical claims to origin.
If we want to be specific to the phrase, then we can't find either "hear, hear" or "hear him, hear him", in any of the early bible translations, though we can certainly find hear in the imperative, it is not the same phrase. It also requests that you listen to the speech it itself is reporting, rather than to another person who is currently speaking.
If we're going to allow a bare hear, used to prefix one's own speech or report of speech to count, then we might as well allow Hwæt!, the first word in Beowulf to count, giving it a date of between the 8th and 11th century, depending on who you believe on that matter.
As an expression, we're left with late 17th Century use in the British Houses of Parliament.
Related to the 2nd part of the question - as to where does
I think its origins are from the phrase
from the Bible.
This phrase is used to conjunction with
usually followed by a proclamation of some kind.
This way of drawing attention of the listeners to what was about to be said was probably then popularized further by the practice of town criers (those chaps with scrolls and bells in england and maybe other places as well) who followed the same practice of drawing attention to them before their official (mostly king / government related proclamations) with the similar cry of
Over the years, especially with "old English" words like "Ye" no longer being used, this has probably been shortened to "Hear Hear"
protected by RegDwigнt♦ Dec 4 '12 at 22:01
Thank you for your interest in this question.
Because it has attracted low-quality or spam answers that had to be removed, posting an answer now requires 10 reputation on this site (the association bonus does not count).
Would you like to answer one of these unanswered questions instead?


text:
Various sources say that "12,000 pairs" of Rabbi Akiva's students died between Pesach and Shavuos because they did not treat each other with respect. See Genesis Rabba 61:3, Ecclesiastes Rabba 11, Yalkut Shimoni Kohelet section 989, for parallel sources. Also see Tana Dbei Eliyahu Zuta chapter 22. This is cited in the Shulchan Aruch (493:1) as the reason why we observe a mourning period between the two holidays. But Rabbi Akiva was also known for his support for Bar Kochba, leading me to wonder whether -- not withstanding the statements otherwise in Midrashim (which sometimes aren't meant to be understood as the literal truth) -- Rabbi Akiva's students actually died fighting for Bar Kochba's unsuccessful revolt against the Romans. Are there any sources that support this? Is there any known sources that his students did fight for Bar Kochba?
Sign up
- Anybody can ask a question
- Anybody can answer
- The best answers are voted up and rise to the top
Taken from this blog post (emphasis mine)
Translation of the bold parts: And since he (Rebbi Akiva) considered Bar Kosiba the Moshiach he called to his students to fight on the side of Bar Kosiba.
...And in each battle many soldiers of Bar Kosiba fell, among them students of Rebbi Akiva
That's a very interesting suggestion, and I'm surprised I've never put two and two together here. After some searching, I've found that a similar suggestion was made by Shlomo Yehuda Rapoport (Shir) in the journal Kerem Chemed (vol. 7, p. 183).
He suggests that the Romans chased and killed the students of R' Akiva on the suspicion that they were involved in the Bar Kochba revolt, like R' Akiva himself was. He supports this with the description of the students' death in the Iggeres R' Sh'rira Gaon:
He posits that "שמדא" was a term used to refer to the Roman persecution.
And even though the Talmud (Yevamos 62b) identifies their death as being though "אסכרה", which means something like "suffocating" or some type of disease, Shir suggests that since the students were forced to flee to the desert, they very well could have died of thirst or hunger or disease. [Incidentally, see this aish.com article n.9: The Talmud says that the students died from the croup which is the English word for askara, a term which denotes choking. The association with Bar Kochba may explain this term, as Bar Kochba's death is described as taking place when a snake (a symbol of his sins) choked him: Jerusalem Talmud Ta'anit 4:5, Midrash Rabbah – Eicha 2:4.]
However, R' Yitzchak Isaac Halevi Rabinowitz in Doros HaRishonim (v.4, ch.31) disputes this idea by refuting the "proof" from R' Sh'rira's letter, and citing the above gemara in it's literal sense (i.e. they died in a plague). Rabinowitz also concludes that the incident with the 24,000 students actually happened before the destruction of the second Temple (by comparing with Talmud Bavli Nedarim 50a), in which case their deaths could of course not have been associated with Bar Kochba at all.
The students mentioned in yevamoth could not have died in the times of Bar-Kochba. Firstly the talmud speaks of students in his (R. Akiba's) youth and students in his old age - so there had to be a respectable amount of time between the death of his first students and the studies with his latter students.
Secondly, R. Akiba was arrested in tishre after the fall of Betar and was killed two years later (137 or 138). He spent those two years in jail. (The five students were meanwhile getting ordained by R Yehuda ben Babba (Sanhedrin 14a), and then fleeing the land of Israel.) There was no time for R. Akiva to "go south" to teach the 5.(Anyway after Bar-Kochba the south was totally destroyed (see para 14 ) . Also R. Meir came first to R. Akiba but didn't have the pre-requisites so he studied with R. Yishmael and then returned to R. Akiba. R. Yishmael was killed in the beginning of the war...
So the first students would have had to die earlier. I guess there are maybe two other possibilites: they died during the Hurban or they died during the Kitos War?
The Eitz Yosef in the new Moznayim print of Medrash Rabba in Bereishis 61 does say that they died `in one period between Pesach and Atzeres in milchamas beitar'. He makes a similar statement in Koheles Rabba 11, saying they died in Bar Kuzivas war. These lines were previously censored out.
It is questionable though, how to reconcile this historically in light of the medrashim that detail the fall of Beitar on the ninth of Av. We know Bar Cochba had a trained army and was catching bombardment and sending them back so apparently there was engagement before the wall was breached.
In support of assuming they died in a war against Rome is the Gemara having said they died of Askara, a type of asphyxiation. Although this is sometimes viewed as a question on this approach, I recently became aware that this would actually fit very well within the understanding of how the Roman method of crucifixion killed it's victims, often political prisoners, in the thousands at a time.
See http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/biblical-topics/crucifixion/a-tomb-in-jerusalem-reveals-the-history-of-crucifixion-and-roman-crucifixion-methods/
"Without any supplementary body support, the victim would die from muscular spasms and asphyxia in a very short time, certainly within two or three hours. Shortly after being raised on the cross, breathing would become difficult; to get his breath, the victim would attempt to draw himself up on his arms. Initially he would be able to hold himself up for 30 to 60 seconds, but this movement would quickly become increasingly difficult. As he became weaker, the victim would be unable to pull himself up and death would ensue within a few hours."
What always caught my attention with this approach is that every day when we bentch and say the bracha of hatov vihameitiv which was nisaken on the Harugei Beitar who didn't rot and were buried, we are commemorating the students of Rabbi Akiva among them. Way to bring tisha b'av, sefira, and birchas hamazon all together!
Rabbi Hershel Shechter quotes Rabbi Yosef Eliyahu Henkin who wrote in one of his essays that Rabi Akiva's students were in fact killed in the Bar Kochba revolt. The Talmud hid this fact by mentioning their cause of death as being something ridiculously impossible. Namely, how can Rabi Akiva who popularized loving one's fellow as much as himself, have all his students die from a lack of this behavior?
The shiur can be heard here. Listen at minute 8:55.
According to the information in the gemara and other places Rabbi Akiva was born in the year "0" and lived for 120 years, to the beginning of the Bar Kochba period under the first of the three people of that dynasty (father, son and grandson). He was 40 years old when he began studying (40 CE), so presumably he did not have students for a while after studying under R. Eliezer ben Hyrkanus. So if he began having students after the death of R. Yochanan Ben Zakkai, he was approximately 70-72 years old (72 CE).
It is difficult to imagine that 24,000 people were his direct students, as opposed to the idea that they followed his psakim. And then if he had to have had enough time to teach his later 5 students who replaced the 24,000 before he was killed in 120 CE, then he must have taught those five from around 100 or 110 CE. Of course we know that Rabbi Akiva came home to his wife and father in law Kalba Savua who was alive until the chorban. So according to this, Rabbi Akiva made his talmidim during his first 24 years of learning Torah.
But WHY do our sources not discuss the implications of such a major inyan of so many talmidei chachamim being lost at one time as they do other events after the chorban? And if it involved two SEPARATE events in the life of R. Akiva, what are the sources describing these two events? Thanks.
the fact that the sources say he had 24000 students leads me to speculate that this number was known because of a count taken as they enrolled as part of bar kochba army- there a count would be taken-otherwise at that time there were no needs or practice of counting students---second rabbi chaim kolitz in his book rabbi akiva-says the wording pairs of pupils refers to going forth for military service
The use of 12,000 pairs in the Bavli (yevamos 62) http://hebrewbooks.org/shas.aspx?mesechta=14&daf=62b&format=pdf is interesting; if the counting was for purposes of the army, as posited by R Abramchik, why say 12,000 pairs (Zugim) instead of 24,000 people? It seems that pairs really does imply actual chavrusahs (paired students learning together and asking and answering each other's questions and generally assisting in each other's study) learning together, and then the question is where/how was this yeshiva run with so many students and one rabbi/leader being considered their true teacher? Alternatively, it could be that pairs were needed in Bar Kochbas army, perhaps for working together on chariots (one holds reins and the other shoots arrows/throws spears/uses sword)? Iirc there are sources in the Talmud about bar kochva's army and that the soldiers were very mighty and used horses, but it appeared as loners.
It is an odd assumption that we would be celebrating a failed revolution of Lag Baomer.
Another point. There is actually no need for the Talmud Bavli to hide anything negative said of the Romans. Their Parthian hosts would be more than happy to hear such stuff. And in fact they didn't hide negative statements about Romans.


text:
What's with all the hate on scorebig.com?
I'm looking to take advantage of the sponsored deal today from ScoreBig. I'm planning to buy some baseball tickets in advance but have never used the site before. Seeing as it has -49 votes so far, is there something not trustworthy about the site? Everything I see so far looks good, maybe the folks who downvoted the deal can let me know before I spend some money. Thanks!
21 Answers answer
I asked the same question on the actual deal. So far not a single downvoter has provided ANY reason. It sure looks to be a good deal and on the up and up. I, too, would love an explanation.
I usually down-vote professional sports deals (as well as all those hockey equipment postings lately). I understand it is an unpopular opinion in this country but I believe they are a pox on our society (it should be engineers, scientists and people with innovative inventions that are worshiped, not grown men chasing after a little ball). I doubt this is the reason for the rest of the down-voters though.
@benyust2: If that's your opinion then you should downvote every movie & show deal with actors getting paid far more than most athletes and music deals with performers getting paid millions for a song. If anything, actors and "musicians" prove to be far more damaging to society than sporting events ever will. Just because you have some built-up hatred towards sporting and athleticism doesn't mean it's not a good deal for those who do not.
Also this deal wasn't for only sporting events, it was for everything from Barry Manilow to Sesame Street: Live.
@benyust2: Thanks for giving your reason. I wish down voters would do that, despite the fact that it opens them up to people who disagree with their reasoning. In this case it's helpful to the person considering the deal to understand your motivations.
@benyust2: God forbid we have professional athletes that are role models for children, making the children actually want to play outside and run around. Rather than sitting on their butts playing wii and getting their whole 45 mins of gym class once a week.
I'm waiting to hear, as well. I'm always open to ways to save money on tickets to pro sports events -- can't really afford to go, otherwise. Taking a family of only four to a Chicago Cubs (I know, go ahead and hate) game is like spending money on a mini vacation.
Looks like this might be an example of why numbers can't always be trusted.
@eraten: Ohhh, I do! But that is more about the absurdity of actually buying DVD's or Blu-Rays, not so much because of the overpaid actors. Don't get me wrong, I am 100% in favor of the free market and if people want to spend their money on sport stuff, more power to them. But I believe it is weakening our society all the same. The main thing that I dislike about sports is all the wasted medical time and supplies treating injuries.
If you don't want an honest answer, don't ask the question. You don't have to be rude if you don't like the answer. Either buy the deal or don't.
@jsoko: Or, you know, maybe the kids could create something useful for society as I referred to in my comment.
Interesting. The question asked for people's reasons for the downvotes. Why downvote @benyust2 for answering honestly?
Because of this, I'm not going to explain why I did it. Feel free to downvote me for replying.
@thumperchick: I'm sure people aren't downvoting for answering honestly, I think it more has to do with the ridiculousness of the downvote reasoning (considering the website sells way more than just tickets for "grown men chasing around balls.") If you have any relevant reasononing for downoving the deal; the website being non-reputable, there are better deals out there, etc, I'd love to hear it before dishing out money to this business today.
I honestly don't feel it's that good of a deal. I'm not terribly interested in sports either, let alone spending $100+ on a ticket. There's only a few concert's I'd do that for, and those tend to be multi-day affairs. It has very little to do with the site, but just that I am the exact opposite of the target market.
If it looks good to you, I say go for it.
@benyust2: Wouldn't you rather your child be fit enough to do these great things you speak of, rather than die at an early age from obesity? There is nothing wrong with sports, it helps people to stay fit and live to be successful to the world in whatever the career they choose.
@jsoko: Yeah, modern athletes (and entertainers, no diff) are role models I'd like my kids to emulate.
If I want them to learn they can flaunt the law so long as they bring the $$
After all, it's the American way.
@j5: I'm not saying children should strive to be athletes and entertainers in every way. My point is some forms of exercise are necessary to live a longer life. To simply downvote every piece of sports equipment, because pro-athletes use a form of it, is idiotic.
@jsoko: I don't disagree with you, but read the @benyust2's post again. (s)he downvotes professional sports deals. How far that goes I have no idea, but I didn't see her/him saying "I downvote sports equipment"
In other news, I fully support college athletes getting paid. Holy crap the NCAA is making a fortune off of these kids and they get bupkis.
ref: http://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2012/11/ncaa_knew_ea_sports_video_game.html
Disgusting money grubbing NCAA
eta: re: downvotes. I think TicketBastard has put such a bad taste in everyone's mouth that they auto-downvote any ticket deal.
@j5: I saw, "I usually down-vote professional sports deals (as well as all those hockey equipment postings lately)", and the hockey equipment I saw posted recently was for kids.
Look for yourself for what was downvoted: http://deals.woot.com/deals/users/benyust2/votedagainst
Nobody cares if you like sports.
By downvoting this deal, the most obvious inference people are going to make is not that you don't like sports but that you have some problem with the company or the deal itself, and that is not helpful to people who are genuinely interested in pursuing it nor is it fair to the company offering the deal. . . nor is it fair to Woot!, who stands to lose sponsor business if said sponsor is downvoted for no good reason.
@jsoko: yeah, ok. RIF fail on my part.
I actually have experience with ScoreBig! (Answered in the actual deal thread.)
I didn't downvote or upvote since I feel pretty neutral about them at this point. However, I think most downvotes are from people who don't like sports. I myself am guilty of that gut reaction when I see a sponsored deal that is absolutely 100% contrary to my interests/tastes like "Eww! Thong speedos for dudes?!"
Though I stop myself and don't downvote unless it's a sucky deal (as in the discount isn't all that great). I don't like it when people downvote something just because it's not something they are personally interested in so I try to not do this also. It's similar to how I hate product reviews that aren't about the product itself ("1-star! I never got it in the mail so I can't really reviwe it.")
Just speculation on my part.
@curli76: Ding, ding, ding! We have a winner. Now how do we get everyone who votes to read your response and understand it?
Thanks for the responses everyone, I think it's safe to say the downvotes weren't warranted and the site is actually a great way to save money on ALL events. I ended up spending quite a bit of money on event tickets last night. It seemed that everything I bought came with another $10 or $15 off coupon to spend on more. I like the idea of ScoreBig.com, it makes it fun and you'll save a lot of money vs using traditonal methods.


text:
I have done everything I could in Flotsam, but it seems there is a house which I can't enter. When I approach the door - the action to open the door shows up but also an action to light the torch lights up. However whenever I try to open the door, it lights the torch instead.
Here are some screenshots of the house, it's location on the map, and the list of my current quests: http://imgur.com/a/0wnHq
Anyone had that problem?


text:
Hill-Man Morning Show & Tullamore Dew @ Wachusett Mountain
March 17, 2014 -
6:00am to 10:00am
The Hill-Man Morning show will be broadcasting LIVE from Wachusett Mountain on Monday, March 17th. Join us from 6a-10a for a special Saint Patrick's Day broadcast presented by Tullamore Dew Irish Whiskey and find out how you could have a chance to ski free for the day! Wachusett Mountain is located at 499 Mountain Rd., Princeton MA.


text:
Scoring 1,000 points at Shadyside became a family affair this season.
When Hayley Holenka surpassed the coveted milestone a couple of weeks back against Pickerington Central, she joined older sisters Ashley and Shayla as the lone trio of female siblings to enter the prestigious club in Eastern Ohio annals.
The three have combined for a grand total of 4,337 points heading into the Lady Tigers' clash with OVAC Class 5-A University High of Morgantown today at 2 p.m. Ashley leads all scorers in Tigers' history - male of female - with 1,723 career counters from 1997-2001. Shayla has 1,342 and Hayley 1,272 and counting.
Article Photos
THE HOLENKA sisters have all scored 1,000 points in their high school careers at Shadyside. They are, from left, Hayley (1,272), Ashley (1,723) and Shayla (1,342).
"It's been fun," said Mark Holenka, the trio's father who also serves as the Tigers' football coach. "I tend not to worry too much about the points. I look at all the other tidbits ... the little things they do right or wrong."
Holenka played some basketball growing up, but admitted he was no scoring machine like his daughters. His wife, Lana, didn't play either.
So, where did these girls learn the game?
"On the playgrounds in Bellaire and Shadyside," Mark Holenka said. "We were at the courts every day. There were no magic wands or anything like that. Their success came from all their hard work in the gyms and during the summers.
"I think they kind of picked up the game because we didn't have Barbie dolls and stuff like that laying around our house."
When asked where she thought the threesome got their skills, Ashley said, "I don't think we had as much skill as we did work ethic. We were drilled and skilled all of our lives. We started out in the Little Dribblers and just kept moving up.
"I think my dad's coaching background really had a lot to do with it," she continued. "He just pushed us and pushed us to be the best we could be. He actually made us believe that we were better than we were. That just sunk in and we took it to heart."
While none of the girls got the chance to play together, they all had the same thought about being 1,000-point scorers.
"It's neat," said Ashley, who went on to play collegiately at Oakland University in Michigan. "You remember the experiences and you know its a moment to remember, so you kind of rejoice with them and be excited for them as well."
She said her most memorable moment in basketball came in college when Oakland qualified for the NCAA women's tournament and met Vanderbilt in the first round.
"I loved playing D-I basketball," she said with a huge smile. "They fed you and they put you on airplanes to see the world. It was a great experience."
Ashley was the lone sister to reach the plateau on the Tigers' hardwood, as Shayla scored hers at St. John Central and Hayley during the Martins Ferry Holiday Tournament.
""It was pretty neat," Shayla said of the three becoming 1,000-point scorers. "It was exciting that all three of us were able to accomplish that feat. We're all pretty competitive, so it's nice we all got 1,000."
Following her prep career, which ended in 2005, Shayla took her skills to Wheeling Jesuit where she played for four years.
Hayley completed the trifecta earlier this season.
"It was always one of my goals growing up," she said of reaching the 1,000-point mark. "I think that is usually one of every player's goals, but it's not always about me. My teammates do a good job of getting me the ball, so they deserve some of the credit."
Was there any pressure on her being the youngest of the three?
"No. I was hoping that I could do it, but I learned a lot from watching them. They are also very supportive of me and tell me what I did right and what I did wrong."


text:
LAMPASAS (September 21, 2012)--Kline Whitis Elementary will host a Locks of Love event Monday evening.
A minimum of 10 inches will be cut for the organization free of charge by licensed beauticians.
The students were made aware of the event several months ago so they could grow out their hair if desired.
Locks of Love is a nonprofit organization that provides hairpieces to financially disadvantaged children in the United States and Canada under age 21 suffering from long-term medical hair loss from any diagnosis, according to their website.
The event is open to the public and lasts from 5 p.m. until 7 p.m. at the school.


text:
Gorilla & Cage Costume (ref: 63280)
- Your Price:
- £129.98
- Retail Price:
- £155.99
- You Save:
- £26.01 (17%)
Oversized Item -
- what is this?
Want to see more? Then why not watch the video!
Oversized Item -
Want to see more? Then why not watch the video!
Got this costume? Want your photo to appear here? Tag your Instagrams with @jokersmasquerade and #jokers63280. How do I tag my photos?
This amazing one person gorilla costume is guaranteed to cause a scene wherever it goes!
Costume includes:
Costume DOES NOT include (You will need these items to complete the costume):
Assembling such an awesome costume takes some patience and there is a very detailed instruction guide supplied with the costume. In a brief summary, here's how it works:
This imaginative twist on a caged human held by an animal would be perfect for a zoo or animal themed fancy dress party.
Sizes for this costume are:
November 2, 2015, by Jonathan M - Cambridgeshire, UK - United Kingdom
I have had more photographs taken of me wearing this than any costume I have previously bought, it was a massive hit. A few down sides, you can't fit into any vehicle to travel to a party, you have to walk. Toilets are difficult (but not impossible) so don't drink pints. The cage is only plastic and damages very easily (that said I will be making a replacement out of Bamboo as the gorilla part is the main bit you need). I used stuffing from old pillows instead of bubble wrap, it worked a lot better. Overall a fast delivery and the costume was a massive hit.
March 9, 2015, by Dave R - Dagenham, UK - United Kingdom
Assembly fairly straight forward but make sure the fake legs and shoes are heavy enough to stop the cage constantly trying to fall backwards. You have to have hold of the cage at all times which makes it a bit annoying when you want two hands free. I'm only 5ft9 and just about got in with my head scraping the top of the cage regardless of the harness strap adjustments. Was almost impossible to use the toilet with this on lol. Overall I'd say it's a great talking point at the party but I feel slightly overpriced for the sacrifices in comfort and practicality.
December 31, 2014, by Jonny B - London, UK - United Kingdom
This is a great outfit, but I would only say it is expensive for what is quite a tackily made product. Its also quite time consuming to put together and the instructions aren't great. Also remember to get hold of some bubble wrap. You will need a lot!
December 8, 2014, by Mikey T - Norfolk, UK - United Kingdom
I absolutely love it, amazingly fast delivery, easy to assemble, but takes a while. It is a little snug but it looks awesome! Definitely recommend.
April 8, 2014, by John B - Surrey, UK - United Kingdom
Had a great evening with this costume, loads of people asking for pictures. Hard to get in and out but once its on it felt comfortable.
March 4, 2014, by Iain L - Kent, UK - United Kingdom
Good fun both assembling and wearing at parties to great effect, although you need a hand to pop the costume on (as directed in the instructions) and slightly awkward when the ape wants to use the facilities… But hey ho…that's what friends are for! Adaptable for most occasions (…as long as both an ape and a caged man are involved!)
January 8, 2014, by Chris S - Manchester, UK - United Kingdom
I couldn't of asked for a more perfect experience using this site! The item I bought was an amazing costume. The customer service and correspondence was outstanding, I would not look anywhere else when looking for fancy dress outfits. Thanks Chris
November 7, 2013, by Helen W - Surrey, UK - United Kingdom
brilliant. my husband wore this for a Halloween party and was voted best fancy dress outfit. it was hilarious although quite heavy.
Have a question about this product? Why not get in touch by completing the boxes below.
The length of the box is 37", the width of the box is 11.5" and the height of the box is 7".
You would need to undress to go to the toilet.
Items are considered "oversize" which exceed 610mm x 460mm x 460mm or over 5kg in weight and cannot be dispatched via Royal Mail or Click and Collect. Oversize packages can only be dispatched via courier. We will only display the delivery options available to you, based on your location and the items in your basket.


text:
You are a fan of cars southeastern ? Come to discover the best forums cars southeastern on the internet and share your experience with a community fan of cars southeastern . You can also build a forum cars southeastern and create your online discussion.
An automobile club for the enthusiast who enjoys the last of the big GM cars. The rear wheel drive B and D bodys.
b-body, badass, england, caprice, roadmaster, fleetwood, #cars, rear, wheel, drive, d-body
We are a group of RC Enthusiasts in Singapore. Join us for our weekly RC Meet ups and ad hoc RC meets!
rc4wd, crawlers, scale, trucks, axial, scx10, ax10, dingo, tamiya, hilux, highlift, clod, buster, ford, toyota, traxxas, summit, racing, savage, flux, cr01, venom, creeper, competition, rock, crawler, road, radio, control, honcho
Forum for Stalker Cars. High performing sports car used on street and track. They can be assembled or turnkey. Building and user information
stalker, #cars, high, performing, sports, street, track, assembled, turnkey, building, user
Where all are free to think, speak, and act as they wish
james, gang, grill, free, speak, think, #cars, history, news, movies, politics, debate, cooking, comedy
Home of the Virtual LMR Team
mans, rennsport, forza, #cars, tora, warspite, deftone, iscc
Free forum : Showcasing the North East Modified Racing activities on the East Coast. . . Racers, Builders and Fans of the various racing series, cars and tracks. . . Gather here for your healthy addic
free, north, east, modified, slot, racing, nascar, activities, coast, racers, builders, fans, various, series, #cars


text:
The November 8th issue of the TLS has a review of My Bright Abyss: Meditation of a Modern Believer, a memoir written by Christian Wiman, a poet and former editor of Poetry. (Last May Kathleen Norris gave the book a very appreciate review in the New York Times.)
The TLS reviewer, Graeme Richardson, notes that the "rules" for modern poetry don't really allow for overtly religious poetry, and Wiman has received criticism as his poetry has come to include explicitly religious themes and topics. The memoir describes events in his life that help explain this development. The result is what Richardson says "could function as a field guide to making atheists angry." One of the steps struck me:
"Step three: question whether being non-religious is really possible anyway. ("Really? You have never felt overwhelmed by, and in some way inadequate to, an experience in your life, have never felt something in yourself staking a claim beyond your self, some wordless mystery straining through words to reach you? Never?")
Wiman's question reminded me of a couple of pages of Karl Rahner that explored the possibility of an experience of grace.
Rahner's whole theological project was an effort to bridge the abyss that often separates doctrinal and theological language from everyday experience, an abyss so wide that many people have simply never asked what the language has to do with the experience. In a brief essay "Reflections on the Experience of Grace," Rahner asked a set of questions that were designed to get people to identify and name experiences of transcendence:
Have we ever kept quiet, even though we wanted to defend ourselves when we were being unfairly treated? Have we ever forgiven someone, even though we got no thanks for it and our silent forgiveness was taken for granted? Have we ever obeyed, not because we had to, and because otherwise things would have become unpleasant for us; but simply on account of that mysterious, silent, incomprehensible Being we call "God" and God's will? Have we ever sacrificed something without receiving any thanks or recognition for it, and even without a feeling of inner satisfaction? Have we ever been absolutely lonely? Have we ever decided on some course of action purely by the innermost judgement of our conscience, deep down where one can no longer tell or explain it to anyone; where one is quite alone and knows that one is taking a decision that no one else can take in one's place and for which one will have to answer for all eternity? Have we ever tried to love God when we are no longer being borne on the crest of the wave of enthusiastic feeling; when it is no longer possible to mistake ourself and our vital urges for God? Have we ever tried to love God when we thought we were dying of this love and it seemed like death and almost negation? Have we ever tried to love God when we seem to be calling out into emptiness; when our cries seemed to fall on deaf ears and it looked as if we were taking a terrifying jump into the bottomless abyss? Everything seemed incomprehensible and absolutely senseless. Have we ever fulfilled a duty when it seemed it could be done only by a consuming sense of really betraying and obliterating one's self? When it could apparently be done only by doing something terribly stupid for which no one would thank us? Have we ever tried to be good to someone, who did not show the slightest sign of gratitude or comprehension, and when we were not rewarded by having that feeling of having been absolutely selfless or decent? Let us search for ourselves in such experiences in our life. Let us look for our experiences in which things like this have happened to us. If we have had such experiences, then we have experienced the spirit in the way I mean here. ("Reflections on the Experience of Grace," Theological Investigations, III, 87)
Such questions are more briefly evoked in another essay by Rahner, "God is no Scientific Formula," in which he sought to convey a notion of God as something more than a word or a definition:
Nevertheless, God is there, not here or elsewhere, but everywhere in secret: where the ground of all silently confronts us, where we encounter the inescapable situation of responsibility, where we faithfully do our duty without reward, where we realize the blissful meaning of love, where death is accepted in the midst of life, where joy no longer has a name. In all such modes of his existence man is involved in something other than the strictly definable. Hence he must become more conscious of transcending what is individually determined; he must accept this transcendence–perhaps against much resistance–and finally courageously defend it. This speaking of God may ultimately only point to the question which is man himself and thus hint at God's mystery in silence, the result may be less adequate than any statement on another subject, the answer, aimed at God's 'bright heaven,' may ever again fall back into the dark sphere of man or may consist in inexorabley upholding the question that transcends any definition, formula or phenomenon. At least in such efforts, whether successful or not, man continues to question, he does not despair, and he will receive an answer because just this question is blessed with the experience of the incomprehensibility which we call God. ("God is no Scientific Formula," in Grace in Freedom, p. 193)
About the Author
Rev. Joseph A. Komonchak, professor emeritus of the School of Theology and Religious Studies at the Catholic University of America, is a retired priest of the Archdiocese of New York.
24 comments
- All
- Editor Featured
One of the essays included in My Bright Abyss appeared in Commonweal ("Dying into Life," April 23, 2012).
We also published Paul K. Johnston's review of the book in our September 13 issue.
Paul Lakeland reviewed it in NCR:
Joe Komonchak's comments, and the quotes from Karl Rahner, got me recalling this sentence from the review:
Nor is the transcendent available only to religious people. It is present wherever you hear "a cry that seems to at once contain and release some energy that is not merely the self, that does not end at despair but ramifies, however darkly, beyond it."
I think the book remarkable, both for its challenging content and its limpid style. I also think Wiman keeps in creative tension what Rahner calls the "transcendental" and the "predicamental" (in a way that Rahner himself sometimes fails to do).
Here is Wiman:
Modern spiritual consciousness is predicated upon the fact that God is gone, and spiritual experience, for many of us, amounts mostly to an essential, deeply felt and necessary, but ultimately inchoate and transitory feeling of oneness or unity with existence. It is mystical and valuable, but distant. Christ, though, is a shard of glass in your gut. Christ is God crying I am here, and here not only in what exalts and completes and uplifts you, but in what appalls, offends, and degrades you, here in what activates and exacerbates all that you would call not-God. To walk through the fog of God toward the clarity of Christ is difficult because of how unlovely, how "ungodly" that clarity often turns out to be.
This from a man who knows the trial of battling with a rare cancer and suffering weeks of pain and affliction.
Thanks, Joe, for posting these thoughts of Wiman and Rahner. Readers interested in more about Wiman may
wish to watch a wonderful dialogue between him and Peter Hawkins that was part of Yale Divinity School's Fall Convocation last month. Wiman is currently a visiting professor at YDS, and Hawkins is a long-time professor of religion and literature (I took his year-long course on Dante 34 years ago!). The conversation, entitled "Poetry in the Round: Christian Wiman and Peter Hawkins," can be found on youtube at this address:
I really, really like this book. His awareness of the immanence of God is beautiful. But Wiman strikes me often as being distrustfull of what Catholics view as "transcendent". He says, for instance:
"Omnipresent, eternal, omniscient -- what in the world do these rotten [!] words really mean? Are we able to imagine such attributes much less perceive them? I don't think so. Christ is the only way to a knowledge of God, and Christ is contingent."
Hmm. He seems to have the old Protestant distrust of medieval theology, and yet he is a mystic of sorts. Would that he knew more of what Thomas was about. And surely he must know that God is properly described as "necessary".
At the end of the book Wiman says he's in remission. Has anybody read how he's doing since then? I checked the net,, but couldn't find anything. I hope there is a lot more to come from him.
I have read the article 'Never' by Professor J Komonchak. One early comment that strikes me uneasily but nobody has commented on is:
The result is what Richardson says "could function as a field guide to making atheists angry."
Why ? Why 'angry' rather than 'bemused' or 'curious' or admit this is a mental world they do not and cannot share and therefore courteously withdraw from the conversation?
I spent years in primary schools as well as in higher education and one kind of bully I did not like was the one whose main delight was in making their victim 'angry' and would enjoy eliciting an angry response from their victim and then run howling to a teacher. I must admit I had a strong experience of this; a boy from Bangladesh knifed a 'white boy' in the secondary school opposite my primary one and the boy died. Bangladeshi ex-pupils of mine now at that school came and talked to me, and I remember Shaharon sitting with tears streaming down her cheeks saying, "We all knew it would happen Miss; we all knew it would happen". The teachers and many 'white pupils' admitted that the 'white boy' had taunted the Bangladeshi boy beyond endurance over a long period of time. So I don't like what sound like triumphalist comments along the lines of – 'I know how to make atheists angry [and then I'll say they live up to the reputation I have already given them!].
As to the Rahner questions, the only way I could get to grips with them was to number them and put them on separate lines. Otherwise I was reminded a bit of Hazlitt's brilliant
"What is truth? asked the jesting Pilate and did not wait for an answer"!
This is quick and easy to do and if you do it you should be able to follow me easily. The only ones I have elided together are 10 and 10a – i.e.
Have we ever fulfilled a duty when it seemed it could be done only by a consuming sense of really betraying and obliterating one's self? [10a]When it could apparently be done only by doing something terribly stupid for which no one would thank us?
For me, questions 1, 2, 4, and 11 are very closely related and the answer to them is "Yes" , especially from those who, at home, at school, or in other work or institutional forms look after children, the elderly who are confused and deep into dementia, the socially incompetent or anti-social or see friends through difficult situations. We count them in millions irrespective of religion or no religion, belief or no belief in God. If anything does make atheists [I prefer the word written as a-theists'] angry it is the frequent supposition that such lives are lived only by the theists. I myself spent time in Care, in totally secular local authority Care, and I am so glad I was in Care under such unholy people and not in the horrifying institutions of Ireland and elsewhere run by the 'Brothers' and the' Sisters'. I experienced no brutality, no abuse.
Other questions that go together for me are 3, 6 and 10[and 10a]. It is called conscience. No a-theists disbelieve in conscience and no a-theist believes that only God is the source. Indeed, many looking at Church history, both Catholic and Protestant, might suspect that God-driven conscience has led to terrible and terrifying acts, just as those living under the Taliban or the terrifying witch cults operating under the name of Christianity in some African countries – especially women, may well feel now.
I'm afraid I do not see the point of question Have we ever been absolutely lonely? Does the writer mean that or does he mean "Have we ever felt absolutely alone? Does feeling absolutely alone or being 'absolutely lonely' lead to a belief in God or come from such a belief? Why?
Questions 7, 8, and 9 return me to my earliest point: – why should these make atheist 'angry' rather than bemused or just to be honest about the fact that these ideas mean nothing to them, play no part in their life?
If you want to read a biography of somebody who seems to operate well totally without religion in unselfishness, conscience, feeling alone or abandoned, can I suggest – assuming it is published in the USA - A Long Walk Home by Judith Tebbutt [Faber & Faber 2013]. She was the woman who spent six months in captivity under Somali pirates and who had to learn of the death of her husband whom she thought had survived the original incident and that she would meet him again. Her own professional background was in Mental Health, socialising in dealing with very damaged and very dangerous women. She had faced weapons before facing pirates. She'd had a long, happy, stable marriage and so obviously loves her young adult son. She does not pray, blame God, ask for religious books and she doesn't even point out that she doesn't! This is a decent loving person who could only form such a marriage and do such professional work by unselfishness who faces suffering and deprivation, desperate grief, the fact of death, with any words of eternity or God or transcendent. I think she could answer "Yes" to all these questions except the three explicit 'God' questions [7, 8, and 9]– but she would understand those who faced them in that form in such a captivity or in other such circumstances.
And me – I am retired now and work as a volunteer in a Hospice and I don't even believe that 'pure' altruism is possible – we are reciprocal beings - one would have to know oneself so well to claim it. That's what CS Lewis understood so well and so humorously, and expressed so vividly in the Screwtape Letters - and so many of the Brothers and the Sisters not at all. If I consciously use the idea of 'transcendence' at all it is not when I am behaving, however incompetently, as a half-way decent human being, but when I am conscious of time and beauty, brought home in landscape and sky, especially night sky, expressed to me in poetry and in music; loving the idea that they were there before me and will be afterwards.
I leave you to answer the questions for me.
Dear Lorna:
Thank you for your comments.
The description of Wiman's book as "a field guide to making atheists angry" was the reviewer's, not the author's. Not having read the book yet, I do not know, but tend to doubt, that it was meant to bully atheists. I do wonder if the reviewer might have had in mind the sentence with which Terry Eagleton began his review of Dawkins' The God Delusion: "Imagine someone holding forth on biology whose only knowledge of the subject is the Book of British Birds, and you have a rough idea of what it feels like to read Richard Dawkins on theology."
As for Rahner's questions, he didn't mean them as anything like a proof of the existence of God, and he most certainly did not think that positive answers to them can be given only by believers in God. Quite the contrary, in fact: he was trying to get people–whether believers or not–to attend to experiences of transcendence, and he sought to do so because all too often words like "God" and "grace" are used without reference to the experiences to which in part they do refer. All that Christians mean by "grace" and "God" cannot be derived from experience alone, but the realities of which they speak are not utterly beyond experience.
Rahner's attempt to bridge the abyss between doctrine and common human experience was an instance of what sociologist Peter Berger called "a theology of very high empirical sensitivity that seeks to correlate its propositions with what can be empirically known." Berger's sketch of foundations for such an enterprise tried to "seek out what might be called signals of transcendence within the empirically given human situation" and to "suggest that there are prototypical human gestures that maya constitute such signals" (A Rumor of Angels, pp. 57-58, 65).
Now while such evocations of experiences that point beyond are not strict demonstrations, they do serve a role in a believer's pursuit of intellectual integrity. As Anthony Levi put it:
Both for Christians and others we have to start from an analysis of human experience and show why it demands to be interpreted in terms of the Christian message in order to be fully intelligible. It is probably even true to say that if human experience were fully intelligible without the great truths assured by revelation, then the Christian message could be neither valid nor revealed (Anthony Levi, Religion in Practice , p. 3).
Similarly the Canadian philosopher/theologian Bernard Lonergan argued that "because it is difficult to know what our knowing is, it also is difficult to know what our knowledge of God is. But just as our knowing is prior to an analysis of knowledge and far easier than it, so too our knowledge of God is both earlier and easier than any attempt to give it formal expression." And while the following claim presupposes a good deal of the argument set out in his book Insight, you can get some sense from it of the "signals of transcendence" to which Lonergan might appeal:
...just as misuse of the notion of nature makes it ridiculous in the eyes of those most eager to know what is to be known by understanding, so too misconception and misuse of the notion of God lead to its rejection by the very men that are most insistent in denouncing obscurantism, in demanding judgments to rest on the unconditioned, and in calling for consistency between knowing and doing. But if one is eager to know what is to be known by understanding, one can ridicule the notion of nature only because one does not know what the name means, and if one is genuine in denouncing obscurantism and in demanding the unconditioned, either one already adores God without naming him or else one has not far to go to reach him (Insight, 683-684).
Now I am sure that no one of these four men would deny that there are millions of non-believers who can answer Yes to Rahner's questions 1, 2, 4, and 11, and would not suppose "that such lives are lived only by the /theists/." As for questions 3, 6 and 10 [and 10a] on conscience. It certainly is true that atheists can recognize conscience and its demands, but it is just as certainly not true that "no a-theists disbelieve in conscience": there are plenty of materialists and determinists around. And it is no argument at all against the kind of use to which Rahner put his appeal to conscience to draw attention to the violations of conscience committed by believers. In fact, I might argue that it is the felt experience of violated conscience that is the best way into the question of what conscience is and is not.
I'll pass over the question of what Rahner might have meant by the experience of aloneness.
I confess that I do not understand why you think that "pure" altruism is impossible; and I don't know what you mean, against the idea, by saying that "we are reciprocal beings."
I appreciate your hesitant appeal to your own experiences of "transcendence" ("brought home in landscape and sky, especially night sky, expressed to me in poetry and in music; loving the idea that they were there before me and will be afterwards"). But don't we have to allow believers also to reflect on such experiences, and on many others, and to make sense of them in the light of their faith?
Bill Moyers interview with Wiman: http://vimeo.com/37362289
PBS interview with Wiman: http://video.pbs.org/video/2319982486/
You should all mark your calendars now for March 5 at 8 pm when Christian Wiman will deliver the 10th annual Commonweal Lecture at Fairfield University. His title, intriguing, is: "Hammer is the Faith: Radical Doubt, Realistic Faith." Details at www.fairfield.edu/cs.
Lorna Crossman has had some difficulty getting her reply to me to copy properly, so she sent it to me and I give it here:
Dear Professor Komonchak,
Thank you for your long, detailed, thoughtful – and terrifyingly erudite - reply! I'm going to start from one of your later questions in the context of my final comments of what transcendence means to me - But don't we have to allow believers also to reflect on such experiences, and on many others, and to make sense of them in the light of their faith?
Of course. Who has said otherwise? But I have heard so many spokesmen of the Christian churches, and indeed spokesmen from other religions, sneer that a-theists have no such idea and conception. In a talk programme chaired by Andrew Marr every week he brought together, some time ago, Rabbi Jonathan Sacks, till recently the Chief Rabbi in Britain and Richard Dawkins. This theme was the only theme Dawkins said made him angry, this kind of hi-jacking of all sensitivities into religion, done by so many within it. That was the experience of my church-going days when, of course I approved of it and believed it all, and of my post-church-going days when I realised how untrue and how unjust it was. I've never heard it the other way round. I have heard – as your Carl Sagan for example said and wrote, that not everybody needs to add 'God' onto that. I'm ashamed to say I do not know the full context in which Laplace said, "I have no need of that hypothesis". That is where people like Dawkins stand. Not every scientist does. The theist assumes and lives it through prayer, praise, petition, worship, and other religious practices; the a-theist – stressing the Greek 'without' - does not. Neither can 'prove' or disprove the existence of God,– it is mainly a time-wasting and pointless exercise. However, the problem comes when the theists, equipped with centuries of power, accuse the a-theists of being also without moral values, virtues, sensitivities etc.
One of the traumatising moments for me in May 2009 was waking up to the Radio4 broadcast [the most honoured radio talk-channel in Britain] of the details of the horrifying Ryan Report and on the same day the outgoing Archbishop of Westminster asserting that atheists have no idea of transcendence, and using the expression "only half-human". The incoming Archbishop of Westminster who was being installed that day was headlined in one newspaper as being willing to 'make war' on such people. Pope Benedict's first reactions to the Ryan Report was that it was all the fault of atheists and secularists infiltrating Ireland! The Irish priest who wrote one of the first great responses saying, "No, it's about us' was silenced by Benedict and as far as I know has not been 'unsilenced' by Francis.
Dawkins – who for me is not representative of the typical a-theist and is probably the only person to whom Richardson alludes without saying so, wrote his book in order to enable and encourage the non-believers to 'come out', after 1700 years in which it would have been too dangerous to do so. I suspect it takes far more courage to do that in America than here. [I say 1700 rather than 2000 in order to date it only from Constantine, although the Christian tendency to hate and yell 'blasphemy', 'heresy', 'exile', 'kill' begins terrifyingly early.] One cannot forget centuries of power which could keep people even out of universities till century and then howl about one book [or even four!] He is fulfilling John Stuart the 19th
Mill's father's hope that it would one day be possible to do talk and write openly like that. I refer to Chap 2 of JSM's' Autobiography, especially the paragraph that begins, "The great advance in liberty of discussion.." . to the end of the chapter. I find their comments absolutely true to my life experience, from both sides. I believe Mark Twain's essays on religion were not published in his lifetime?
I do not know who Richardson is, [at least I have heard of Rahner you will be glad to know!] All I know is that that is how you chose to frame your article and relate the two: The result is what Richardson says "could function as a field guide to making atheistsangry." One of the steps struck me:
"Step three: question whether being non-religious is really possible anyway. ("Really? You have never felt overwhelmed by, and in some way inadequate to, an experience in your life, have never felt something in yourself staking a claim beyond your self, some wordless mystery straining through words to reach you? Never?")It seemed to me therefore that there was something salient in the connection for you. I apologise if I was mistaken.
All I can say to the quote from Anthony Levi - is – well, yes, quite possibly.....The name Levi threw me a bit for I have seven of Primo Levi's books here. This is a man who 'looked into the abyss' and did not come to the traditional Jewish or Christian conclusions. [And I loved his use of Dante's Ulysses compared to that of Dante himself! If This is a Man, chap10.] If you have a copy of The Drowned and the Saved, read [re-read?!] chapter 6, The Intellectual in Auschwitz, especially the late paragraph that begins, "Like Amery, I too entered the lager as a non-believer....". Step three questions...?
I knew about Eagleton on Dawkins: "Imagine someone holding forth on biology whose only knowledge of the subject is the Book of British Birds, and you have a rough idea of what it feels like to read Richard Dawkins on theology."
Actually, he is wrong and I have a strange reason for knowing. During the academic year of 2007-2008 I was a 'note-taker' for a dyslexic student in her third year of an honours degree in theology and religious studies which turned out to be almost totally 'Christian' studies. So I attended and noted entire courses on Christian theology, taking up the great "arguments for God" themes from the beginning and Christology from the first century. My student, if I'm honest, showed far less interest in her studies than I did! I attended every lecture, every seminar, did all the reading and even made notes on that for her, drew on my own teaching experience to make sure that she understood the arguments all along the way. I loaned her books that I had already possessed for years – and were still on the reading lists! Meanwhile, during 2007, I had been reading Dante with honours degree students and under that tuition, and my own longest essay involved reading both Augustine and Aquinas and understanding the 'theological' as well as 'political' world in which Dante was living. I gained a mark so embarrassingly high in both essay and exam that I am not going to quote it to you! From both these experiences I assure you, Richard Dawkins could take honours degree papers in those subjects and pass them well. I wonder how many science papers Eagleton could take and pass? I suspect he is relying on peoples' ignorance to be able to get away with it. I don't think Terry Eagleton would have dared write such sneering rubbish about JSM or his father.
All I want of people is that they try to be' halfway decent human beings' no matter how incompetently, reflect deeply, and keep a sense of beauty and fragility in the human and natural world, and humanly expressed in various art forms. I am too afraid that great 'spiritual striving' beyond that ends up in men as fundamentally 'good' as Thomas More wanting to torture and burn heretics alive even while he's wearing a hair shirt, and people carrying rosaries and crosses every day making life unbearable for children, young people, and women. And in Father Vianney, whom I'm afraid I find joyless, misery-adoring, vicious to women, and, I suspect, finally psychotic, induced partly through anorexia and those countless hours in the confessional. All my knowledge of him comes from Catholic sites. I would not let anyone I loved anywhere near him, nor he near me. Give me the humble, 'half-way decent' 'theist' or 'a-theist' any day. I'll stand by Judith Tebbutt and Primo Levi, as well as Christian friends!
when I read your many examples of evil done by Christians and particularly members of the Catholic church, all I can think of is how sad it is that we are so bad at following the call of Christ. My interpretation of every instance you mention is colored by my belief that everything that is good comes from God, and that everything that comes from God is good.
In that light, my interpretation is that the Ryan report was very upsetting, but it is about people and an institution gone astray. It says nothing about God. It only points to the inadequacy of the church in Ireland in incarnating the Body of Christ : the institution must urgently be reformed so that it becomes closer to what it is meant to be.
I did falter for a while when I read those news coming from Ireland, because the Eucharist is central to our faith, and if partaking in it helps us become the Body of Christ in an effective way, then how can one explain that some of those priests, who pray and celebrate the Mass every day, nevertheless committed sexual abuse in egregious ways? The juxtaposition is almost incomprehensible and can make one doubt the reality of the Eucharist. (But I have since then reconciled myself with the idea that the Eucharist only makes a difference if our attitude disposes us to receive communion.)
If you tell me that many atheists behave in admirable ways and many Christians in atrocious ways, then the answer is easy: those atheists, without knowing it, are closer to God than those Christians.
In that light, my interpretation of experiences of what is good, or true, or beautiful, is that such experiences, whether by believers or by unbelievers, are calls from God trying to reach out to us. When an atheist says "Love is a mystery" and expresses a yearning to deepen their understanding of love, what I see is a pull from God - deep calls to deep: God's call in and to the deepest part of themselves... When they act selflessly for the care of others, what I see is Christ working in the world through them. They do not see it that way, of course, and my interpretation, I suppose, could make them angry.
As to the question "Have we ever been absolutely lonely?", my uneducated, improvised guess is that Rahner's point might be that if someone has that experience, then he or she is taken by a sense that he is alone, and that there is something wrong about that ; that he is meant to be in the intimate company of another being. His loneliness is an unrecognized longing for God, who amone can fully alleviate it. It is an implicit acknowledgement of his need to be together with God.
To those who believe, everything authentic, or admirable, or awe-inspiring, are either examples of a person turning towards God or of God reaching out to men and women.
A new phenomenon: the "atheist Mass".
(Sorry the article is in Frenhc) http://www.lemondedesreligions.fr/actualite/royaume-uni-franc-succes-pou...
amone -> alone
Frenhc -> French
Lorna --
I applaud your defense of honorable atheists, and, yes, there certainly are some, just as there are some honorable believers.
The way Richardson presents him, Wiman does seem to be throwing down a challenge to non-believers for their apparent refusal of grace, that is, for their never having noticed calls to a transcendent reality, to the "beyond" which Wiman says "stakes a claim" on his consciousness. Wiman seems to think that everyone has experienced such a claim. But what the nature of that beyond is for Wiman isn't clear, and, in fact, I find that Wiman isn't entirely consistent about it. At any rate, I don't think that Wiman is making a moral judgment about the non-believers refusal of transcendence. He's just astonished at what he sees as their apparent lack of curiosity.
I note also that Wiman's definition of "faith" is apparently not Richardson's. Wiman defines "faith" simply as "a motion of the soul towards God". For him, faith is not belief in God or dogmas. Given ordinary curiosity, it seems inconceivable to him that an adult would not ask the questions about God which he has asked. And when he asks of the non-believers, "Never?" I don't think he's accusing them of having chosen to turn their backs on God. He just can't imagine someone *never* being aware that human beings seem somehow incomplete, filled as we are with longings we cannot explain entirely.
I must admit I haven't read the whole book -- it's heavy going about extremely heavy matters, for instance, the nature of God and death. He's not entirely consistent (and that doesn't seem to bother him a bit!), and neither does he accept the basics of the Christian faith, though I don't see why he accepts some but not all. Still, he has a lot to say of interest, and he's a brave man in many ways.
Maybe we should all read the whole thing and have a thread about it.
P. S. About total loneliness -- Wiman thinks Original is is "cold and total loneliness", -- it is "defined by blankness, meaninglessness".
Claire ==
The atheist Mass poses some important questions: how does such a man=made mass differ from the Christ=made one? And how do we know it? Back to Wiman and the evidence for belief. He doesn't seem to think that belief -- i.e., literal belief in dogmas -- is important. In fact, he thinks beliefs are limiting if held on too long. He also thinks that God is a process, of which we are a part. Not you usual Sunday school teacher.
@ Professor Komonchak, Claire and Anne - thank you for responding to me, and to you especially,, Professor for working out how to get me back on at all! I'm writing this 'straight on' which makes me a bit nervous. [Later - and it's misery!]
Claire, I don't think most a-theists I know would get so much 'angry' at being told they are 'closer to God but without knowing it' - as exasperated; it's what I mean by the 'hi-jacking'. It gets dangerously close to questioning somebody's integrity. It was done to me once by a clergyman. His wife and I were colleagues and good friends. I was at lunch with them. At one point he turned to me and said something like, "Lorna I don't understand why you don't join us...." I knew he meant it kindly, indeed as a compliment to me, but I felt he was dangerously close to saying - "Look , you don't put your fingers in the till, you seem fairly kind and courteous, you work hard, you even seem to spend your life doing the kinds of things we do, what is your problem?" ! My problem was I didn't believe what he believes, cannot sing and say with any real cmrehending assent the things I woud have to sing and say in a Church service. He would not have assumed I could just become a Hindu, Sikh, Muslim or Buddhist just because he finds me reasonably moral and faintly fit to talk to! His wife did understand. She smiled at me and I suspect kicked him from under the table! When he gained his Master's Degree a few years ago I was the one non-family member invited to the ceremony! I felt so honoured and I loved going!
You say 'everything that is good comes from God and eveything that comes from God is good'. That lets God off the hook from everything that does not feel good. One thing I noticed in Rahner's questions was no concern at all with theodicy questions. In my reponse to Professor Komonchak I mentioned John Stuart Mill's father.One of the things I love about his writing is how complimentary he is to Christian believers - i.e. most of them are so much nicer than the God they assume they worship! [If I had the confidence that I could write then copy and paste this I would quote some of him to you].
At an individualised level such ideas can, I admit, turn me to great anger. For example, I have read Theresa of Lisieux's 'spiritual journal' in which she says [of her15-year old self] that God knew that a fragile little flower like her could not bear harsh winds so he sheltered her. So the rest of the girls slung into orphanages, out on the streets, used as prostitutes, trafficked etc are just hardend little tarts in his eyes instead of fragile little flowers? And can put up with it, be strong enough to take it? I would have ten thousand times more respect for her if she had said -' I was lucky'. But no, God did it. That story alone makes her God unspeakable to me. I can bear far more easily an impersonal, 'statistical' universe than one ruled in such a way. I could dismiss her as a silly, self-centred little girl, but she is a 'Doctor of the Church' who did not look back on her own immaturity or give a thought to those others. She sent down no roses to me or to anyone else I know personally or vicariously. Yes, I know about the loss of her mother- so did tens of thousands of others who lost at the same time all they knew of family and ended up in ghastly institutions or on the streets.
I do not share your view of aloneness or loneliness. Such moments seem to me quite sane . It is how we deal with them that matters. I do believe a richly filled mind can help - and the examples of others. The typical saint story seems to have to have a 'dark night of the soul' episode but only if one comes 'back' safely. But one can also look on the darkness and learn not to be afraid. Non-believers have for centuries been deprived of those kinds of end-of-life stories. They are growing in number now through being more often told, even of famous people such as David Hume. [Did you know that Keats also died of tuberculosis and at virtually the same age as Theresa of L.? He was not even mentioned when her 'relics' were brought here].
Anne: this system does not seem to allow me to get back to your words, I'm terrified of losing what I have already written and I do not want to misquote you, so forgive me if I do: you wrote about "an apparent refusal of grace.... never having noticed calls to a transcendent reality" It reminds me of a moment between the Chief Rabbi and Richard Dawkins. The Chief Rabbi quoted Isaiah Berlin as saying that he was 'tone deaf where God was concerned' and suggested that that was the expression for RD as well:- tone-deaf. You can almost see and hear Dawkins gulp - and then he says "Yes, I suppose I am tone deaf, but I'm not sure that there is anything there to hear." Now, I know many people will immediately stand up; and shout "Aha, told you so - no sense of beauty, transcendence" etc. But he goes on to talk of poetry, of music, of awe before the universe. I felt from the things quoted from Rahner that 'trascendence' was being used to mean almost anything that most people would assent to in order to prove that they 'believe in God really". This is how my Concise Oxford Thesaurus sets out 'transcendence": acknowledge his transcendence: excellence, greatness, magnificence, superiority, supremacy, incomparability, matchlessness.
transcendent - excellent, excelling,magnificent, supreme, unsurpassed incomparable, matchless, unequalled, unparalleled.
Then it moves to transcendental: mystical, mystic, mysterious, preternatural, supernatural, otherwordly, transmundane.
It is feelng themselves shifted from one into the other that I think many people don't like and then get accused of 'apparent lack of curiosity. How, for goodness sake, can scientists especially be accused of 'lack of curiosity'?! And who claims atheists have not 'asked questions about God' - but maybe rejected most of the responses they hear? Your own Pew Research has shown that atheists tend to know their Bible better than most Christians! Many also know their Classics well and considerable amounts about other religions.
My final point to anybody still listening [thank you if you are!] is about 'bullying' and linguistic forms - namely questions. Series of questions in long monologues are about power. Think of police interviews, barristers, interrogators, inquisitors, or even just angry parents . They alone ask the questions and by them put onto others their pictures, however just or unjust. They work with their own assumptions about what is 'obvious' and 'relevant'. I was as uncomfortable with single words such as "Really?' and "Never?" as I was with the surrounding questions. Try it as a drama exercise. Read some of those questions and words with different intonations. Try reading the whole sheet of them in such a way. Do you really not hear the danger of sneering, disbelief, contempt, negative judgments, battering people into the ground with words? Why was he writing this stuff in this form if addressing only ' the converted'?
I had a terribled dilemma when I was young : I loved poetry of many kinds [still do] ; I loved the theophany in the Book of Job [Chaps 38 & 39, 40 & 41]. Fabulous stuff - as poetry. What I couldn't bear was what he was doing - basically, batting Job into the ground with questions to which he wanted no answers except submission. He's a bully. Now I picture him raving away like that, looked at by thousands of abandoned ,abused, overworked children, dirty, unkempt, malnourished, who just look at him with round grave eyes and thumb in mouth. Or by women, married too early, made to bear children with immature bodies, abused, raped, used as war trophies, just silently looking at him, till he begins to hear himself. I keep reading that God wanted to suffer alongside human beings:he did not choose to be anyof these people,did he?
I discovered Jung's commentary on the Book of Job- so ignorant I pronounced the poor man as beginning like 'junk' and ending as rhyming with 'bung' which brought about great laughter! I tried to describe a bit of it as I understood it - and was forbidden ever to speak in 'Scripture Lessons'again!! I;m sure most of you will sympathise! But with whom..?!
I am conscious of time and beauty, brought home in landscape and sky, especially night sky, expressed to me in poetry and in music; loving the idea that they were there before me and will be afterwards.
You see, that's the abyss between believers and atheists. We look at the same sky but have different experiences. You gaze at it and love the idea that the sky exists beyond your life. I gaze at it and give thanks to God. Once, right after a brief moment spent full of awe of the Creator, poof! - a shooting star streaked through the sky, as though He was winking at me "yes, I am here".
I'm not into Theresa of Lisieux either. You know her better than me. I suppose I might read her some day as a penance, but not as long as I can avoid it. 19th century devotional piety is not my cup of tea.
I make a big distinction between being alone and being lonely. I was only talking of loneliness, not aloneness.
I keep reading that God wanted to suffer alongside human beings:he did not choose to be anyof these people,did he?
Wait a minute. He became man to be with us, live and suffer alongside us. He was betrayed by his friends, beaten, left on a cross to die a shameful death, abandoned by all, even, as it felt to him, by the Father. He lived a human life just like the rest of us, and he had his share of suffering. I must object. You're not being fair to him.
Series of questions in long monologues are about power.
When I read Rahner's questions, in my head I imagine them being said in a pleading tone of voice. He is searching for common ground. "Never? Have you never had those experiences? If you have, then we're not so alien to one another. We have something in common, and that's a starting point for dialogue." That's my read.
Lorna --
Here are some preliminary thoughts about the meanings of the words "transcendent" and "transcendental" , and I would add the word "transcendence" . A closer look at their meanings in philosophy might help see where we get their many different ordinary meanings. Luckily, there seems to be a common note in all the meanings -- the notion of going "beyond" ("trans-" in Latin) the things in our most basic experiences (whatever those experiences might be).
Aristotle realized that there are certain words which seem to describe things in all the various sorts of beings (the "genera"). Those the words are "being", "one", "true", "good", and "beautiful". They can be said of *all* kinds of things, and they have a sort of super-universality. The logical/semantic problem is that those words don't seem to signify some one quality or set of qualities which are common to all the things called "one", "true", etc, as do ordinary generic words such as "color", "cow" and "car". These words are peculiar in that they are not definable in the ordinary sense of "define". They are mysterious.
The medievals called those words "the transcendentals", and the medievals realized very clearly that their meanings are most important yet most elusive when applied to God Who, as spiritual, is beyond this physical world.. But just what does it *mean* to say that He is "infinitely beyond" anything we know in this world? Insofar as they describe God their meanings are "beyond" us and spiritual and most of those other things that the dictionaries mention.
In the middle ages the word "transcendence" was contrasted with the word "immanence". The former meant God's being *beyond* His creation, including being beyond the spiritual levels of man and angels. His "immanence" meant His "presence in* this world. In other words, for the medievals, God is both in this world and beyond it, immanent and transcendent. It might be noted that some philosophers think that God is wholly *beyond* this world and not concerned with it. In other words, they think that God is not a "personal God". Aristotle was one of them, as I remember, but I'm not quite sure of that. If I'm not mistaken, many of the 18th century philosophers thought this too.
Kant's consideration of the terms was quite different from the medievals. His meaning of "transcendental" implied a reality (or, more accurately, a possibility) whose reality we cannot prove but which we must assume so that we can view the world and the things in it as coherent. I'm not sure how his meaning has affected current non-philosophical meanings. Kant did not deny the reality of "the transcendent" (God), but said belief was only belief, not knowledge.
There are also later philosophical meanings of "transcendental", e.g., the name of the American movement "transcendentalism", which was a certain kind of "nature mysticism" which often seems pantheistic. In this view nature *is* God, so He is immanent in a special sense. It seems to me that Wiman might be influenced by them. He thinks that the notion of God as transcendent in the old sense of beyond this physical world is "rotten". (He doesn't tell us why he thinks that.)
Dear Lorna:
With regard to your comments on 23 November:
About what you call "hi-jacking": Believers, or at least Christian believers, believe that the universe makes sense, that is, that it holds together, that, for example, all things, from atoms to galaxies, were created by God and continue to exist because he wishes them to, and that, further, his purpose for creation, and especially for human beings, was revealed in Jesus Christ. It would be very odd if such believers did not try to make sense of everything, most particularly the human condition, by reference to God and to Christ. The miseries and grandeurs of the human condition (Pascal), they believe, are illumined by revelation, and it is natural for them to try to understand them.
If a-theists also try to make sense of the universe, among the things that they may try to understand is the existence of believers. It would not be surprising if they tried to figure out why some people believe in God or to disabuse believers of their mistaken beliefs, doing so perhaps by explaining (away) the experiences on which some believers rely for their belief. In doing so, would they be "hi-jacking" such experiences?
Some believers think that they can prove the existence of God; other believers don't think you can. A-theists, of course, are not convinced by any proofs so far advanced.
I cited the remark about the "field guide" simply because that is how he introduced the paragraph in which I was interested."
An obituary can provide you with information about Anthony Levi. The book from which I quoted must have been written while he was still a Jesuit. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/obituaries/professor-anthony-levi-6155...
I do not understand how from your experience in those courses in 2007-2008 you can conclude that Richard Dawkins "could take honours degree papers in those subjects and pass them well." I don't know "how many science papers Eagleton could take and pass. Suppose he's quite ignorant of modern science: osn't the point that Eagleton hasn't written a book to debunk science?
With regard to your comments on 26 November:
Rahner's questions were designed to help believers recognize that their religious relationship with God was not a matter simply of external impositions of Scriptures, creeds, rites, etc., but has also an experiential dimension. Roman Catholics have often been told not to trust their experience. You can't read the great theologians and mystics of earlier centuries without noticing what a role inner experience had for them, but the idea that grace might be experienced was largely absent from the theology textbooks of the modern period-- in response to Protestant emphasis on faith as fiducial trust and Modernist efforts to reduce dogmas to articulations of inner experiences. Rahner's questions hoped to draw attention to experiential referents for the language of grace. To repeat: he was not appealing to them in order to try to prove the existence of God–nor even of grace. He was trying to show that "grace" refers, in part, to events within people's experience.
Rahner had a particular philosophical view to the effect that all human knowing involves a "movement-beyond," that is, a transcending. A question is itself a movement beyond present knowledge and towards further knowledge, which, once reached, often enough prompts a new question and a further move beyond. There is no fixable limit to such "moving beyond". To move beyond is to transcend previous accomplishment or achievement. And Rahner was of the view that the ultimate goal of such movement is somehow "pre-apprehended" in all particular instances of knowing. So that is a first meaning of transcendence for him. His questions were attempts to get people to recognize this self-transcending movement in particularly striking moments.
You ask: "How, for goodness sake, can scientists especially be accused of 'lack of curiosity'?!" Well, for example, scientists–and there are many of them–who don't think one should ask, "Why is there something rather than nothing?" can be accused of "lack of curiosity."
With Claire I too do not read Rahner's questions as bullying. I imagine it would make a big difference, if they were "performed" dramatically, as you suggest, with what voice they were read, whether they were read rapidly or aggressively, etc.
From what I read about contemporary Great Britain it does strike me as odd to speak of a-theists as an oppressed or bullied minority.
Lorna --
Sorry for the length of all this, but you raise so many important questions. Here's my two bits.
As I understand the original problem of this thread it was whether or not God is immanent in this world in such a way that we can experience His presence directly Beyond this question is the question: IS there a God in the first place? And now you raise the question: is a loving Creator of pain even possible? It seems to me that those are three very distinct questions, though the answers, depending on what they are, can be relevant.
I agree that the problem of evil is the great stumbling block to belief in a loving Creator. "A being which causes pain in an innocent being" obviously is inconsistent with "a being Who is just". This implies that a just Creator of pain in innocents is impossible. But I have been wrong in my arguments before, so I think I have to look at whatever counter-evidence there might be.
As I see it, there is one huge kind of counter-evidence: the sheer abundance of unearned goodness and beauty in this world. So where does all this goodness come from? These good and beautiful things cannot cause themselves because things which come into being cannot have caused themselves . (Principle: you can't give what you haven't already got). And there might even be an infinite series of causes of beauty which caused the next in line, but -- and this is crucial -- the whole series is a series of derived value, so there must be something *outside of the series* from which the series derives.. In other words, there must be something outside of the series which causes the beauty and goodness in the series. In other words, derived beauty and goodness must be derived from something whose beauty and goodness is not derived but is intrinsic to itself, i.e., God. (This is based on Duns Scotus' argument for the existence of God which is a variation of Aritotle's and the other Scholastics' arguments.)
So we have a *conclusion of an argument* (that there is no just God) contradicting the *empirical experience* that there is unearned goodness and beauty which must be caused by uncaused beauty and goodness.
Some of us think that the empirical experience of the gratuitous goodness and beauty tips the balance against the abstract argument about the unjust God, though honesty requires that we admit that as the argument stands there is a serious contradiction between some of our beliefs. They must be improved. (But how?)
Add to the good things in the world, many of us have found within our own interior lives what can be described as a sort of "spiritual energy" which strengthens us to do what is right and good even when we are inclined NOT to do what is right. In other words, even though we don't seem to have *earned* this help an energy which seems foreign to our natures' helps us to do what is right and good. I interpret it is a "grace of God", a gratuity from God. Truth to tell, we often *don't want* these so-called "gifts". And,yes, we often succeed in choosing to ignore these empowerments so we can then choose our dearly beloved evils. Might they be the products of some unconscious force inside our own souls? Well, maybe, but what evidence is there that such is the case? They often seem to go against our nature.
One of the main questions in this thread, I think, is whether or not non-believers are aware of these graces, indeed, whether or not non-believers are given such graces. Many non-believers tell us of their "consciences" impelling them towards doing good. I wonder exactly what they mean by that. How do you describe "conscience"? (Yes, I suspect the graces of God are within you too!)
i don't think that Dawkins et al are aware that many of us religious folk do indeed think that we have evidence for our beliefs that go beyond Scripture. He doesn't seem to realize what we're talking about when we say "grace of God". Yes, grace is "beyond" our ordinary empirical experience -- it is spiritual, not sensory. But he doesn't seem to admit even the possibility of such realities. (Again, Nagel's "Mind and Cosmos" is relevant here.) Dawkins denies it because he is convinced that the problem of evil makes God in the usual sense of "a loving, just Creator"im possible. But we believers can only reply: There must be something wrong somewhere in your argument, Professor, because we find this empowerment, this grace, and a loving God is the best explanation for it.
As to Job, I have always been most impressed that at the end God blesses who -- Job's friends?? No, he punishes them for not telling the *apparent truth about Him*, and He *blesses* Job for telling the truth about God, even when it is anything but flattering. Just what I'd expect from a loving, just God.
These are just some of my thoughts about the main points which I think are at play here. Maybe we should split them up into a number of different threads.
Let me just add that I too often get angry at God because He causes the innocents to suffer. How can I accept that? Emotionally I can't. He Himself has *made me* to be the sort of thing that gets angry at such apparent injustice. All I can think is that the injustice is only apparent, that someday every little suffering creature, every little cricket and mouse and child, will be compensated to such an extent that they will be thankful to have lived, even with the suffering. So, yes, there must be at least one sort of Heaven, some place(s) of compensation.
And then, perhaps most important of all, there is the fact of Jesus, the most innocent of all Who suffered and died that we might live. I don't understand that business about "atonement" at all. at all, but it seems to me that there has to have been a misinterpretation by the writers of Scripture about the reason for the Crucifixion. But we do know that *He accepted it* for some good reason.
I also believe that God the Father must have (as all good Fathers do) suffered with His Son, indeed He suffers with all His sons and daughters. Somehow this suffering is not an imperfection in Him but a perfection, a something to admire.
Is what I'm saying what Wiman is saying? Much of it certainly isn't, but he is very interesting when talking about the greatness of God. And what about what Rahner says? I'm not entirely sure what he's talking about either. But I also think there are many roads to God.
As to Therese of Lisieux being kept safe, she was indeed psychologically particularly fragile -- quite paranoid among other things. But she persisted in loving those whom she was convinced were "against" her. At the end she was tortured by the thought that that she was so evil that she was damned. Yet she loved God. What must she have known?
I begin with lots of contrition. When I wrote before I had no idea who Wiman was or what he said about anything. I've now read two articles by him in the American Scholar: one written in 2007 and one in 2012. Also an article on him by Clive James whose writing both funny and serious I have loved for years. That included extracts from his poetry. Somebody - I'm afraid I've forgtten who - said, "Tell me your names and I will tell you your life". I share two names with Wiman: one is Simone Weil, the other is Robert Frost. I have to love anybody to whom those names matter. I do not know if Monica Furlong was ever published in America, but her collections of essays, Travelling In, Christian Uncertainties, and Contemplating Now reached me in the same kind of way that Simone Weil did and I would like to have known if he had known of her. He says of a service "it seemed to tear all wounds open - and was profoundly comforting ...seemed the only possible balm".
My reading of Simone Weil and Monica Furlong had a similar effect on me: unbearable; necessary, read a few paragraphs, throw the book across the room, go and pick it up,read a bit more...
I had hoped here to copy and paste quotations from Wimans autobiographical essays that 'speak' to me and try to explain why they do, even if on the surface we seem to inhabiit different intellectual planets [ dare not say say spiritual] but I have the same tecncal problem as before - I cannot find a way to do it. He says for example that he is aware that Christian forms and language have clearly '' 'shaped' his imagination. True for me as well. I do not see how it can be otherwise especially for people here raised in 'the authorised version'. Like Shakespeare, we quote it without even knowing it, its melodies and rythms go so deep. When I walk in certain landscapes I still hear certain hymns - 'before the hills in order stood or earth received her frame'; 'time like an ever rolling stream bears all her sons away" ... and will you be pleased to know that I also in excesses of delight, quote e.e.cummings - "i thank You God for this most amazing day" [and the first four lines of "all nearness pauses while a star can grow" - my favourite evening poem conveys more of a sense of holiness to me even than Wordsworth's "It is a beauteous eveing, calm and free".
Hymns, sculpture, stained glass windows, reproduced great paintings, the greetings cards of Christmas and Easter, even compulory religious education have seared these images into us however adrift they have come from knowlege and belief. But then, it is possible to stand in awe of the Parthenon or Delphi without belief in the religious beliefs they once expressed. I think large numbers of people in Britain are struggling with this one. [ That includes Richard Dawkins!].
Wiman writes that he realises that 20 years of his poetry have had 'one constant' God, "or rather, his absence". I smile in recognition, but not for me the ' first person of the trinity" but the second whether I explicitly mention him or not.
I had to stop writing, editing had become impossible , I was losing letters for each 'correction'.
Concerning Dawkins: people need to realise how deeply bound up he is in the scientific world. Frankly, it does not bother me whether people accept evolution or not - but I have not given my life to science. Also , the impact of '9/11' was enormous here, let alone what it was like in America itself. His life is also greatly bound up in America and American friends and colleagues. He and the other 'three' - you will know who I mean, felt they had to question the automatic respect given to 'religion which keeps so many people so silent and which can so effect school curricula and political apirations.
2001 was my penultimate year of teaching. I can assure you from my contact with thousands of students over 15 years that that phenomenon of respect for religion kept many miserably silent if they found themselves in groups of committed believers, even if there were only one or two of them. "Tolerance" and 'respect' flowed almost totally in one direction, at least in public places. I do not think it would be like that now. For far more than the first half of my life a-theism was associated wih lack of morality, values etc. It was stil in 2009 even on the day of the publication of the Ryan Report.
I remember being asked,scornfuilly , "And what will you do when you come to the end of yourself?" I cannot even imagine me asking such a question of anybody. Nor did it occur to my questioner that perhaps I had come to an end of myself and she had not even noticed. I know that Christopher Hitchens was aware of vultures hovering almost in glee over his death-bed -would he panic, cry out, repent, etc.? !
Someone in this correspondence said they did not get the impression that atheists were a bullied minority in Britain. I would agree. Now. It took centuries. It feels now more a steady drip drip of negativity. Religious power-holders still hold great monologic public power. The word 'atheists' rarely occurs without being prefaced by "strident "and 'aggressive'. Our most beloved broadcaster about te natural who has filled our screens with beauty for virtually all my life - when he dies there will be public mourning - has no belief in God . To attach the words 'strident and aggressive' to him would be ludicrous. I suspect most people have no idea what he thinks or why [the sheer cruelty of nature, nothing to do with human sin.] He does not fit the stereotype the media needs. It can also come unexpectedly. I Iive a long way from London. It costs to get there. I went down to the exhibtion of Leonardo da Vinci. On the way back to my train I picked up a copy of the London Evening Standard. Inside was a large headline and article written by the editor. t was so full of scorn and hate for atheists and why they wouldl come to see Leonardo at all that I panickd that som madman had tried to throw acid or attack the paintings with a knife or something and claimed it on behllof atheism. Of course nothing happened, no nasty atheist had done anything just as at the moment it is not atheist wh lock people in churches and burn them or behead people for some kind of thought-crime. I was 70,alone, the trip had cost me dear, the journey was exhausting. I fet I had had something thrown over me in buckets that I cannot name here. This was the editor of the major newspaper of our capita city. She would not have dared to have written it of any other group of people.
Lorna --
Sounds to me like there has been a lot more anti-atheism in Britain than here. Yes, in some areas it's an issue, but I don't think it is typical of most Americans. My parents, for instance, were orthodox Catholics but they chose to name me after my mother's atheist physics teacher who was apparently a remarkable woman -- utmost integrity and concern for others. Her atheism just wasn't an issue, apparently.


text:
This should be simple but nothing's working:
How do you set the height of a webpage to be, lets say, exactly 4000 pixels—in such a way that scroll bars exist even when the page is blank?
I'm new to JavaScript/JQuery but very experienced with similar technologies. I'm trying to do some fancy effects based on scrolling the page. To accomplish this methodically, as a first step I'm looking to make a "really tall" page. From there I will hide/display items based on the scroll height with pseudo-code along the lines of:
function onScrollEvent() {
var height = scroll height
var sectionIndex = Math.floor(height / MAX_SECTION_HEIGHT);
for each item in my array of graphics
if item index != sectionIndex then item.fadeOut else item.fadeIn
Once I have that working, I'll start creating the effects I want to see. The problem is, I can't make the stupid page "really tall."
When I set the height style property of the main-content div, it doesn't seem to trigger scroll bars unless there's actual content on the page. How do I make the page "permanently tall," so to speak? That is, I want the page to behave (scroll) as though it has 4000 pixels of content even if there's only one line of text on the page. Right now it behaves as though there's a call to:
height = Math.min(height of contents, height of div style)