Great exchange between P.B. Shelley & Ozymandias. I believe Ozymandias makes the point that without a firm understanding of one\’s relationship with the \”way, truth and life\”, one flounders groundless. See Ecclesiastes 10:2&3
This series of posts came to a fork in the road…. and ran down the middle of the forest instead.
Wasn\’t this an article about theft and how long it\’s taking to come to terms over a $1mil+ theft? Who cares who stole what from whom? It\’s still a theft. Remember Enron & Worldcom. Now that was thievery.
Denial of coverage could come from various reasons, one being that there might not be cover for the kind of felony related in here. This is the kind of claim that is clearly included in a \”fidelity\” coverage of the type that banks and financial institutions take. If it were a \”theft & larceny\” cover then this claim is surely out of bounds. I should see the conditions\’ texts to be sure about it. The news does not give us a clue. I don\’t believe there\’s foul play on the part of the insurer but rather a confusion about what is covered and what is not by church authorities. If there IS cover, the courts will condemn insurers to pay the claim in full, plus legal costs & expenses which usually are at least twofold the indemnity. Insures are well aware of this and do not take unnecessary (and very costly) risks, for which they are not covered themselves…
Wild guess: it may be that a priest is not considered an employee of a parish. He may not be considered an employee of any type in the sense we usually understand. If so however, it might be that he is an employee of the diocese rather than the parish and therefore not covered under the policy covering employee misconduct.
And just to jerk Ozy\’s chain, Jesus seemed to be anti-Pharisee, wound\’t you agree?
A good guess PB. Even if I may not consider a religious person \’an employee\’ of his/her parish/diocese/sinagogue/whatever, conditions should be thorougly read through to know that. We are all (I should think) insurance people. We know about small print and tricks. But, provided there is no proven intention by underwriters to cheat in policy conditions, texts stand as \”Bible truth\”.
This takes me to your poking again into the \”anti\” issue. If you are a Christian, and it seems that you are one, then you shouldn\’t be using the name of the Lord to your fancy purposes. But, as this is a way as any other to enlighten people about what it truthful and what is not, I\’ll take the glove once again but will call it a day in this respect, please.
Jesus is the second person of the Trinity and the only who was visible to humans in due course. He appeared as a man to us (probably to avoid scaring the peasants\’ shite out) but He wasn\’t. Thus being God and not really man (although he had a few apparent lapses along His martyrdom) His motives cannot be interpreted by human standards. Trying to do this would be foolish and useless, and won\’t throw any light upon what He eventually did. His (or His father\’s motives) were other than being \’against\’ this or that, but rather to save humanity from sin (spiritual death). Those who cannot learn from errors of their own (and eventually from others\’ errors) are doomed to repeat them over and over again. And this was clearly pointed out in Proverbs 26:11. Ozymandias aka Argie, rests.
I plead for your patience and understanding: English is my second language as you might have guessed by my butchered grammar. I am an Argentine male of Basque roots without a single drop of AS blood who sat for Cambridge Proficiency in seven subjects quite well though, some fity years ago. I don\’t intend to patronise or preach, just to keep the record straight (as I see it). Thanks.
Ozy says: Jesus \”appeared as a man to us… but He wasn\’t.\”
How do you know? How can you say with certainty that Christ was not fully human and fully divine? You have said that you are an agnostic. That means that you don\’t even know whether God exists or not, yet you confidently assert that Jesus Christ was not God incarnate.
It isn\’t my intention to beat you up or to bore IJ readers, but for your information the Christian faith is that Jesus was and is a man in every respect except for sin, and that His person is the second person of the Holy Trinity. He is God incarnate, and incarnate literally means, \”in flesh.\”
You may not believe this, but there is no basis for a rational man to make assertions to the contrary. The Bible is very clear that \”unto us a child was born.\” Jesus, ate and drank, He felt pain both physical and emotional, and so on.
To contradict this is to contradict something true that you might say about yourself. It\’s like me saying that you don\’t live in Argentina. It\’s silly.
We have updated our privacy policy to be more clear and meet the new requirements of the GDPR. By continuing to use our site, you accept our revised Privacy Policy.
I concede the field to you because you\’re all over it.
Great exchange between P.B. Shelley & Ozymandias. I believe Ozymandias makes the point that without a firm understanding of one\’s relationship with the \”way, truth and life\”, one flounders groundless. See Ecclesiastes 10:2&3
Where were you Yogi when the original story was discussed. There\’s still time to say something useful
Let\’s call it a day without forgetting Proverbs 26:11. Thanks for your patience.
This series of posts came to a fork in the road…. and ran down the middle of the forest instead.
Wasn\’t this an article about theft and how long it\’s taking to come to terms over a $1mil+ theft? Who cares who stole what from whom? It\’s still a theft. Remember Enron & Worldcom. Now that was thievery.
Why is Travelers denying coverage?
Denial of coverage could come from various reasons, one being that there might not be cover for the kind of felony related in here. This is the kind of claim that is clearly included in a \”fidelity\” coverage of the type that banks and financial institutions take. If it were a \”theft & larceny\” cover then this claim is surely out of bounds. I should see the conditions\’ texts to be sure about it. The news does not give us a clue. I don\’t believe there\’s foul play on the part of the insurer but rather a confusion about what is covered and what is not by church authorities. If there IS cover, the courts will condemn insurers to pay the claim in full, plus legal costs & expenses which usually are at least twofold the indemnity. Insures are well aware of this and do not take unnecessary (and very costly) risks, for which they are not covered themselves…
Wild guess: it may be that a priest is not considered an employee of a parish. He may not be considered an employee of any type in the sense we usually understand. If so however, it might be that he is an employee of the diocese rather than the parish and therefore not covered under the policy covering employee misconduct.
And just to jerk Ozy\’s chain, Jesus seemed to be anti-Pharisee, wound\’t you agree?
A good guess PB. Even if I may not consider a religious person \’an employee\’ of his/her parish/diocese/sinagogue/whatever, conditions should be thorougly read through to know that. We are all (I should think) insurance people. We know about small print and tricks. But, provided there is no proven intention by underwriters to cheat in policy conditions, texts stand as \”Bible truth\”.
This takes me to your poking again into the \”anti\” issue. If you are a Christian, and it seems that you are one, then you shouldn\’t be using the name of the Lord to your fancy purposes. But, as this is a way as any other to enlighten people about what it truthful and what is not, I\’ll take the glove once again but will call it a day in this respect, please.
Jesus is the second person of the Trinity and the only who was visible to humans in due course. He appeared as a man to us (probably to avoid scaring the peasants\’ shite out) but He wasn\’t. Thus being God and not really man (although he had a few apparent lapses along His martyrdom) His motives cannot be interpreted by human standards. Trying to do this would be foolish and useless, and won\’t throw any light upon what He eventually did. His (or His father\’s motives) were other than being \’against\’ this or that, but rather to save humanity from sin (spiritual death). Those who cannot learn from errors of their own (and eventually from others\’ errors) are doomed to repeat them over and over again. And this was clearly pointed out in Proverbs 26:11. Ozymandias aka Argie, rests.
I plead for your patience and understanding: English is my second language as you might have guessed by my butchered grammar. I am an Argentine male of Basque roots without a single drop of AS blood who sat for Cambridge Proficiency in seven subjects quite well though, some fity years ago. I don\’t intend to patronise or preach, just to keep the record straight (as I see it). Thanks.
Ozy says: Jesus \”appeared as a man to us… but He wasn\’t.\”
How do you know? How can you say with certainty that Christ was not fully human and fully divine? You have said that you are an agnostic. That means that you don\’t even know whether God exists or not, yet you confidently assert that Jesus Christ was not God incarnate.
It isn\’t my intention to beat you up or to bore IJ readers, but for your information the Christian faith is that Jesus was and is a man in every respect except for sin, and that His person is the second person of the Holy Trinity. He is God incarnate, and incarnate literally means, \”in flesh.\”
You may not believe this, but there is no basis for a rational man to make assertions to the contrary. The Bible is very clear that \”unto us a child was born.\” Jesus, ate and drank, He felt pain both physical and emotional, and so on.
To contradict this is to contradict something true that you might say about yourself. It\’s like me saying that you don\’t live in Argentina. It\’s silly.