tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post8707540406363036241..comments2024-03-09T00:51:33.602-07:00Comments on Little Catholic Bubble: Just to clarify...Leila@LittleCatholicBubblehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09357573787143230160noreply@blogger.comBlogger302125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-30242407179183711612013-11-08T03:45:58.212-07:002013-11-08T03:45:58.212-07:00Chris,
I completely understand. My faith is bipol...Chris,<br /><br />I completely understand. My faith is bipolar. I value my worldview that there simply is no supernatural any thing. Then I read accounts of healings that seem to totally blow my worldview out of the water. I have to decide if these stories are contrived and exaggerated (which I doubt) or if they are true, in which case the odds against these healings without some form of divine intervention are very high and therefore "Nothing Short of a Miracle" would be an appropriate title. I could still say that no laws of nature had to be violated for these miracles but the laws of probability would seem to go out the window if these stories are true. It's a dilemma for me. I was comfortable with my worldview. But now...Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06976342950011924171noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-73791522168221024172013-11-07T23:12:02.789-07:002013-11-07T23:12:02.789-07:00I'm sorry, I just read that as sarcasm for som...I'm sorry, I just read that as sarcasm for some reason. It just seemed really sudden.Chris Phttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02256704303520776966noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-18887184485599330072013-11-07T16:09:21.961-07:002013-11-07T16:09:21.961-07:00No apology necessary - if you're gaining some ...No apology necessary - if you're gaining some insight and belief, that is a great thing. I think I can speak for those who've commented regularly, we're all happy to discuss our faith through reason. And Leila is a gracious hostess. Sounds like an interesting book. Nubbyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15972118374098863290noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-60181586084315321362013-11-07T15:05:55.269-07:002013-11-07T15:05:55.269-07:00Chris, I don't think Bill was being sarcastic....Chris, I don't think Bill was being sarcastic. I think he is saying that these miracles are evidence of the supernatural, and miracles. Leila@LittleCatholicBubblehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09357573787143230160noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-85150900301842632702013-11-07T12:50:14.171-07:002013-11-07T12:50:14.171-07:00If you're that cynical about the basic idea, I...<i>If you're that cynical about the basic idea, I don't see why you picked up the book.</i><br /><br />Soooo, I <b>shouldn't have</b> picked up the book because I am "cynical"??? <br /><br />Is this some kind of reverse psychology evangelizing? Isn't it supposed to be a good thing that I actually believe what I am reading?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06976342950011924171noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-51593225384204252692013-11-07T12:23:12.286-07:002013-11-07T12:23:12.286-07:00Well in all seriousness, what were you expecting? ...Well in all seriousness, what were you expecting? If you're that cynical about the basic idea, I don't see why you picked up the book.Chris Phttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02256704303520776966noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-22804592255013399742013-11-07T11:43:24.980-07:002013-11-07T11:43:24.980-07:00Ok. I get it. I have only read one chapter, which ...Ok. I get it. I have only read one chapter, which is about Father Solanus Casey and I am already convinced that my "worldview" in which there is "no supernatural anything" can't possibly be right. The miraculous healings described in this book pretty much prove me wrong. So any time I said that something could not have happened because it would have required supernatural intervention which I did not believe was possible, I was wrong. I apologize for my obstinacy, especially to Nubby who is probably still practicing her slap shot. Having killed this thread, I look forward to the next article, Leila. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06976342950011924171noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-65390831055145816582013-11-07T09:37:10.196-07:002013-11-07T09:37:10.196-07:00I just picked up Nothing Short of a Miracle by Pat...I just picked up <i>Nothing Short of a Miracle</i> by Patricia Treece. Just reading the back cover about nuns praying to Mother Cabrini for an infant who accidentally had concentrated silver nitrate solution put in his eyes. His burns were healed and his eyesight restored within 48 hours. It may be difficult to maintain my worldview of no supernatural anything after reading this. Thank you to the person who recommended it. I forget who did and I'm too lazy and ready to read it to look up who it was. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06976342950011924171noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-25105869096362924122013-11-07T08:25:02.489-07:002013-11-07T08:25:02.489-07:00All attempts by "reasonable" atheists, c...<i>All attempts by "reasonable" atheists, cafeteria "Christians", radical feminists, heretics, et al, to deconstruct Jesus from God-Man to mere man or nice guy or prophet or great philosopher or do-gooder or whatever, are doomed to failure.</i><br /><br />They are doomed to failure because Catholics won't let people honor Jesus as any of those things, even if that is what he really was. No. He's been continuously elevated from a teacher, to a savior, to the Messiah, to the Son of God, to God. <br /><br />That's not who or what he was or is. That's what men made him into. <br /><br />The Jesus that most people honor at Chistmas and Easter is a man, a great man whose life and death changed the world. That's who I think of when I think of Jesus. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06976342950011924171noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-13181974407970256032013-11-07T07:36:23.175-07:002013-11-07T07:36:23.175-07:00All attempts by "reasonable" atheists, c...All attempts by "reasonable" atheists, cafeteria "Christians", radical feminists, heretics, et al, to deconstruct Jesus from God-Man to mere man or nice guy or prophet or great philosopher or do-gooder or whatever, are doomed to failure. Ultimately, you either accept the Christ for Who He truly is, or you reject Him. At day's end all contortions of logic, mental gymnastics with scriptural texts, and the like, are futile - they've never ever succeeded in history and aren't about to now.<br /><br />When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do people say the Son of Man is?”<br /><br />They replied, “Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets.”<br /><br />“But what about you?” he asked. “Who do you say I am?”<br /><br />Simon Peter answered, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.”<br /><br />Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven. And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.” <br /><br />Then he ordered his disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Messiah.Francis Choudhuryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01146223983345452362noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-21734083643889855632013-11-07T06:18:48.039-07:002013-11-07T06:18:48.039-07:00Francis,
I would guess that the Evangelist who wr...Francis,<br /><br />I would guess that the Evangelist who wrote the book of Mark (most likely John Mark who is mentioned in Acts) perhaps did not have Mary's account of the beginning of the story of Jesus. <br /><br />It's very likely that Luke did and perhaps the writer of the book of Matthew got the story by the time he wrote his gospel. <br /><br />The writer of the book of John (most likely a Greek) starts with the adult Jesus as well. <br /><br />Having got to where I am in my journey, it has become clear to me that the fruits of Christianity are more important than the veracity of the stories that make it what it is. I am content living my life as a Catholic who has doubts. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06976342950011924171noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-1398856197829664882013-11-07T06:11:17.091-07:002013-11-07T06:11:17.091-07:00Bill,
Jefferson never referred to his work as a &...Bill,<br /><br />Jefferson never referred to his work as a "bible", and the full title this 1804 version was, <i>The Philosophy of Jesus of Nazareth, being Extracted from the Account of His Life and Doctrines Given by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John; Being an Abridgement of the New Testament for the Use of the Indians, Unembarrased [uncomplicated] with Matters of Fact or Faith beyond the Level of their Comprehensions.</i><br /><br />If the level of your comprehension really is akin to that of the early native Indians <i>unembarrassed with matters of fact or faith beyond the level of their comprehensions</i>, then it'd certainly appear that you're on the wrong forum. <br /><br />Jefferson also didn't deny the divinity of Christ, nor the supernatural aspects of His actions. All he did was propose a review of the morals of the ancient philosophers, moving on to the "deism and ethics of the Jews," and concluding with the "principles of a pure deism" taught by Jesus, "omitting the question of his deity." Jefferson explained that he did not have the time to address that question, and urged the task on Priestley as the person best equipped to accomplish it.<br /><br />Jefferson's was a totally different ball game to a discussion/treatise about the complete Christ and the complete Bible and their full meaning and relevance to mankind.Francis Choudhuryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01146223983345452362noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-6634188978492717872013-11-07T06:01:15.977-07:002013-11-07T06:01:15.977-07:00Meantime, I'm going to work on the natural phy...<i>Meantime, I'm going to work on the natural physics of my slapshot, so that I won't have to rely on a miracle to hit top shelf, glove side should I get a break-away this wkend. ;)</i><br /><br />Wow! You play baseball?! ;-)<br /><br />I have to take a step back and do research into the existence or nonexistence of the supernatural. If I can find even one example showing that dies in fact exist, I will consider changing my worldview. <br /><br />Good luck in your baseball game. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06976342950011924171noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-82960065957026735782013-11-07T05:52:32.143-07:002013-11-07T05:52:32.143-07:00Bill,
It's not a matter of accuracy. All the ...Bill,<br /><br />It's not a matter of accuracy. All the gospels are accurate, but each portray a different aspect of the salvation narrative. They're all literally, stylistically and thematically different in approach. Each Gospel comes at the story from a different angle - and intentionally so, to disclose the full significance of its many layers. Not one of the Gospels is comprehensive enough to suffice on its own - that's precisely why we have four of them. <br /><br />Here: http://catholic-resources.org/Bible/Four_Gospel_Chart.htm<br /><br />Mark's Gospel is obviously incomplete. He doesn't even begin with the Annunciation or the Nativity. Should we therefore assume that neither of those key events occurred? Truly, I don't get why you're arguing in this patently silly vein! <br /><br />Perhaps this poem from my childhood will help you understand what happens when the selfsame fact, event or story is related by multiple tellers. As will (hopefully) be obvious from your reading of it, each of the men described some part of the actual truth, but all their reports have to be combined and harmonized to elicit the proper and full picture.<br /><br />The Blind Men and the Elephant<br />John Godfrey Saxe (1816-1887)<br /><br />It was six men of Indostan<br />To learning much inclined,<br />Who went to see the Elephant<br />(Though all of them were blind),<br />That each by observation<br />Might satisfy his mind.<br /> <br />The First approached the Elephant,<br />And happening to fall<br />Against his broad and sturdy side,<br />At once began to bawl:<br />"God bless me! but the Elephant<br />Is very like a WALL!"<br /><br />The Second, feeling of the tusk,<br />Cried, "Ho, what have we here,<br />So very round and smooth and sharp?<br />To me 'tis mighty clear<br />This wonder of an Elephant<br />Is very like a SPEAR!"<br /> <br />The Third approached the animal,<br />And happening to take<br />The squirming trunk within his hands,<br />Thus boldly up and spake:<br />"I see," quoth he, "the Elephant<br />Is very like a SNAKE!"<br /> <br />The Fourth reached out an eager hand, <br />And felt about the knee<br />"What most this wondrous beast is like<br />Is mighty plain," quoth he:<br />"'Tis clear enough the Elephant<br />Is very like a TREE!"<br /> <br />The Fifth, who chanced to touch the ear,<br />Said: "E'en the blindest man<br />Can tell what this resembles most;<br />Deny the fact who can,<br />This marvel of an Elephant<br />Is very like a FAN!"<br /> <br />The Sixth no sooner had begun<br />About the beast to grope,<br />Than seizing on the swinging tail<br />That fell within his scope,<br />"I see," quoth he, "the Elephant<br />Is very like a ROPE!"<br /> <br />And so these men of Indostan<br />Disputed loud and long,<br />Each in his own opinion<br />Exceeding stiff and strong,<br />Though each was partly in the right,<br />And all were in the wrong!Francis Choudhuryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01146223983345452362noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-9870678384021330472013-11-07T05:47:37.217-07:002013-11-07T05:47:37.217-07:00Just one last comment here.
This is bugging my br...Just one last comment here.<br /><br />This is bugging my brain. Bill, your dismissal of the gospels besides Mark's isn't logical taken within the larger context of supporting documents, history, etc. <br /><br />You're talking a short amount of time from Christ's life for the telling of the event. You're also forgetting (ignoring?) the fact that actual sources were alive with the re-telling, and so could correct and/or verify the events. People didn't just accept whatever was written. Why the wave of the hand dismissal, logically?<br /><br />Ex: An event - my sibling is born.<br />My mother recounts the birth story to me throughout my life. Obviously, she was there, went through it, experienced it, and can be a trusted source for testifying to the event itself. Never mind that I could go further and consult the hospital, the history of the city at time, etc. Thirty years later, I tell the story to my kids, with my mother still alive to verify my re-telling accurately.. So on, so on. There's even narratives to go along for the re-telling(a scrapbook, say), as the gospels had.<br /><br />It's not logical to dismiss later gospels, because they are so heavily supported, It'd be like someone dismissing my re-telling of my sibling's birth simply because I wasn't there. <br /><br /><b>That doesn't negate the fact that the event occurred. And my inevitable fluctuation in detail doesn't make the event a lie.</b> <br /><br />This is all I'm trying to get you to agree with, logically. It's not about "getting you to believe", that's between the Holy Spirit and you. I'm just clicking away at logic in my head, hoping maybe it sheds some light.<br /><br />Maybe some other time we'll get over this bump in logic, too, regarding supernatural vs. natural and how natural cannot bind supernatural. <br /><br />Meantime, I'm going to work on the natural physics of my slapshot, so that I won't have to rely on a miracle to hit top shelf, glove side should I get a break-away this wkend. ;)<br /><br />Have a good day bubble buds.Nubbyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15972118374098863290noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-34879554708731497652013-11-07T05:09:03.772-07:002013-11-07T05:09:03.772-07:00Is that a line of argument anyone here has employe...<i>Is that a line of argument anyone here has employed?</i><br /><br />Amazingly, no. No one on this site resorts to threats and warnings. I get them constantly on other blogs. But not here. That's why I don't bother with other sites that much anymore. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06976342950011924171noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-39485396147625907532013-11-07T05:01:48.931-07:002013-11-07T05:01:48.931-07:00Not sure why you keep coming back to punishment an...Not sure why you keep coming back to punishment and a vindictive God. Is that a line of argument anyone here has employed? It's not the one I am employing. I would say your approach is that of a coward (I know I know, Pacal's wager...),but not that you are damned.Sebastianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03993048824594772782noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-63655461781565828722013-11-07T04:52:49.950-07:002013-11-07T04:52:49.950-07:00And if you found the arguments compelling (based o...<i>And if you found the arguments compelling (based on logic) that it is indeed more rational, would you then change your worldview accordingly?</i><br /><br />I guess I would have to. But I've developed some principles. One principle is that a supernatural explanation for anything can not be accepted as more likely than any natural explanation. It can only be accepted if there are no other possibilities. I think there are a number of seeming miracles that severely challenge my worldview. I am waiting for a book from the library with some examples. I don't worry about my worldview being wrong. I think that anyone who tries to tell me that I will be punished for not believing is falling for one of the oldest tricks in the book. Just to be on the safe side, I say "Jesus, I trust in you" and trust that he would save me from that kind of petty vindictiveness that the creator of the universe might have, which I sincerely doubt. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06976342950011924171noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-60526102098555782382013-11-07T04:36:46.107-07:002013-11-07T04:36:46.107-07:00To me, any reports of the supernatural have to be ...<i>To me, any reports of the supernatural have to be ignored so as to preserve my worldview.</i> At the risk of you, Bill, having answered this already - have you seriously considered whether it could be <b>more rational</b> to consider the supernatural than not? And if you found the arguments compelling (based on logic) that it is indeed more rational, would you then change your worldview accordingly?Sebastianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03993048824594772782noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-41550121074711562802013-11-07T04:20:18.322-07:002013-11-07T04:20:18.322-07:00Did others not only add to Mark after 16:8 but als...<i>Did others not only add to Mark after 16:8 but also embellish the passages before it?</i><br /><br />Francis,<br /><br />I can't help but think that Marks gospel is most accurate and that the others used additional sources (including Luke knowing Mary). To me, any reports of the supernatural have to be ignored so as to preserve my worldview. You've heard of the Jefferson Bible? That's what I would do to. It is easier now that it is electronic. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06976342950011924171noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-59879313382084670982013-11-06T22:58:18.290-07:002013-11-06T22:58:18.290-07:00Bill,
The first letter of St Paul to the Corinthi...Bill,<br /><br />The first letter of St Paul to the Corinthians, usually dated as being in the range of 53 to 57 AD was one of the first documents of the early Church, predating even the Gospels. Mark is dated around 70 AD. Yet, in 1Corinthians 15, Paul is writing unambiguously about Christ’s Resurrection and appearances: “For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, and then to the Twelve…” If this was the information Paul had received from Jesus’ Apostles/first disciples, this raises the problem of how Mark’s Gospel, coming later, can be read as either the women not saying anything to <i>anyone</i> (as you contend), or Jesus not making any appearances. No, Mark chose, for whatever reason (and there are many theories out there as to why) to end his Gospel where he did. Or (and this is a real possibility) part of his Gospel was simply lost (and was replaced by the few verses following verse 8).<br /><br />More importantly, if your contention is correct that the women didn’t indeed tell <i>anyone</i> about what they’d seen at the gravesite (an empty tomb, angels, etc…) then how come we’re hearing about these things (in Mark’s gospel)? Did others not only add to Mark <i>after</i> 16:8 but <i>also</i> embellish the passages before it? I’ll await your answer to this. (And please don't answer again with "I don't think" or "I doubt". Neither of those statements have any weight on this blog. Never had, never will. We're evidence and/or logic based people.)<br /><br />Scholarship of the Bible, Bill, involves a reading of it by what is sometimes referred to as “sacred circumlocution”. To understand or get the full/proper picture from one passage/chapter of scripture, one needs to refer to other passages elsewhere in the Bible – sometimes going back all the way to Genesis! Someone (like you) unskilled at doing this, reads one verse or chapter, ignores everything else in the Book and barks merrily and loudly up a gum tree. You can’t just point to the abrupt ending of Mark’s Gospel and ignore St Paul’s epistle before it <i>and</i> the other Gospels after it. That’s a sure way to get your knickers in a knot in your attempt to explain Scripture better than the Church who compiled and canonized it. If the Church made up the Resurrection bit, they'd definitely have omitted Mark's Gospel from the Canon. Comprende, señor?<br /><br />Even Jesus used circumlocution in His discourses. For example, He spoke of the “prince of this world” in John 12:31, rather than say “Satan” or “the devil”. He did this partly to point out what a powerful adversary He had, and was about to engage with, and partly to educate His disciples about what they must expect from the world, even hatred and persecution; since Satan was the “prince” of it, and, as such, had powerful influence over the minds of the men in it. Without looking to other passages of scripture we wouldn’t have a clue in hell who this “prince” was that Jesus was talking about, would we? <br /><br />Having no faith in the infallibility and teaching authority of the Church which Christ founded for the purpose, you’re floundering like so many Protestants and fundamentalists, sadly “wresting Scripture unto your own destruction” (cf. 2Peter 3:16). Keep going like this - pitting your intellect against the Church and letting half-baked exegeses titillate your ears - and soon you won’t be making even the half sense that you do currently. Francis Choudhuryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01146223983345452362noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-38132492745732734382013-11-06T18:23:12.230-07:002013-11-06T18:23:12.230-07:00Bill's illogical argument is that because deta...<i>Bill's illogical argument is that because details were seemingly "left out" in this gospel, compared to later gospels, that somehow that negates the reality of the Resurrection.</i><br /><br />The original Gospel of Mark ended with the women finding the tomb empty. Anything added to that account just embellishes it with made up stuff about guards, angels, appearances of Jesus to Mary Magdeline and the apostles, etc. <br /><br />I believe the tomb was empty and that is all. The rest is like what Holywood does to true stories. It all requires supernatural intervention, which I don't accept as being real. <br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06976342950011924171noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-10637161800744511832013-11-06T17:25:07.023-07:002013-11-06T17:25:07.023-07:00"In all likelihood, Luke had the Blessed Virg...<i>"In all likelihood, Luke had the Blessed Virgin as an actual source for his writing."</i><br /><br /><i>Of course</i> he did! He even drew her - according to tradition, even etching one of several icons of her on the surface of a table which Jesus Himself had crafted! Tradition aside, who else but the Blessed Virgin could've given Luke such a detailed account of the exchange with Gabriel at the Annunciation - the history changing moment of the Incarnation? Who else was present at that momentous event as a witness?Francis Choudhuryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01146223983345452362noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-88169129045970747772013-11-06T16:47:48.193-07:002013-11-06T16:47:48.193-07:00Mark was Peter's companion. Mark's gospel...Mark was Peter's companion. Mark's gospel recounts what Peter shared with him. Bill's illogical argument is that because details were seemingly "left out" in this gospel, compared to later gospels, that somehow that negates the reality of the Resurrection.<br /><br />What Bill hopefully comes to agree with as fact is that the gospels include truth from both actual eye witnesses, and truth from those who received the reports/narratives.<br /><br />All of the gospels had sources, some named within the gospels themselves, some unnamed. In all likelihood, Luke had the Blessed Virgin as an actual source for his writing.<br /><br />Details vary; but that's not a logical problem for the validity of the event(s). People were still alive from Christ's time, and so could easily verify their authenticity.Nubbyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15972118374098863290noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-44812336612235007572013-11-06T15:29:52.206-07:002013-11-06T15:29:52.206-07:00Earlier Bill mentioned that Mark doesn't inclu...Earlier Bill mentioned that Mark doesn't include a full Resurrection account as the other gospels do. However, I believe the first mention of the Resurrection (that we have) predates Mark, in one of the epistles.<br /><br />Also, Mark is a kind of weird gospel compared to the others because it focuses quite a lot on secrecy. Throughout the book, Jesus implores people not to reveal anything, so it makes sense that the Resurrection at the end is ambiguous and not public. I honestly don't know why some people think Mark is the most accurate just because it's the earliest; it contains themes that are barely in the epistles and other gospels.Chris Phttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02256704303520776966noreply@blogger.com