THE SENTENCING OF THE BEAMISHBOY

The earthly powers have met and the fate of the beamishboy has been decided. The beamishboy will be allowed non-school related internet access of no more than an hour a day. That includes emails, chats, surfing and forums. That's not very much time!!! But the beamishboy will soldier on.

POPE OBSTRUCTED SEX ABUSE INQUIRIES

This link made me very sad: CLICK HERE

How could he have done it? And he's now the Pope. I've obtained a copy of his letter from this site: http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/Criminales.pdf and I've obtained a copy of the Order from Vatican from CBS News website which was referred by an RC website. It's 40 pages long but the beamishboy has soldiered on and what I've read is not good at all. It deals with the procedure when there is sexual abuse by priests of people including children.

A 2001 letter (click here) talks about the need to review the 1962 procedure. But as matters stand there has been no review and this has been like 7 years? So the procedure in 1962 still stands.

All I can say is I'll never be a Roman Catholic even if I agree with its theology which I don't in the first place.

Here's a summary of the beamishboy's summary of the current position in the RC church (until some review has been made) in handling sex abuse cases involving priests and even where it involves minors. I have included paragraph numbers so you can check for yourself.

Paragraph 4 allows for the guilty to be transferred to another assignment.

Paragraph 11 deals with the strictest secrecy in which the entire investigations and proceedings must be sealed under. It must be regarded the secret of the Holy Office. There's a lot of stress on the secrecy in this paragraph. It also states that everyone must observe the strictest secrecy "under the penalty of excommunication latae sententiae". It repeats the secrecy many times and the penalty or censure.

Paragraph 13 requires the oath of keeping the secret from "the accusers or those denouncing the priest and the witnesses". So, even the victim is required to take the oath of secrecy on pain of excommunication.

Paragraph 18 places a duty on the victim to inform his confessor of the act within one month and if he fails to do so, he "falls into an excommunication reserved latae sententiae.."

Paragraph 35 talks about the need of two witnesses who know both the victim and the priest. If they cannot find two such witnesses, they will have to investigate elsewhere "as to whether hatred, enmity or any other human disaffection against the denunciated priest was the case". You see what line the pope is taking?

Paragraph 42 (a) "If it is evident that the denunciation totally lacks a foundation, he (the Ordinary) should order this to be declared in the Acts, and the documents of the accusation should be destroyed."

Paragraph 44 allows the Ordinary to decide whether to proceed with other accusations from other victims against the same priest or just to act on the one accusation. This the Ordinary can do according to his own choice and conscience.

Paragraph 52 deals with the accused priest before a Judge within the church. Note that everything from the investigation to the judgment and sentence is entirely an internal church affair governed by strict rules of secrecy. Paragraph 52 says that "in every way the judge is to remember that it is never right for him to bind the accused by an oath to tell the truth."

Paragraph 70 states that secrecy is vitally important. Not observing it "obliges under serious sin (sub gravi).

Paragraphs 71 and 73 defines "the worst crime" as homosexual abuse by a priest and any sort of sexual abuse involving youths.

Appendix 27 on page 25 gives the format of the Oath to be taken even by the victim to ensure secrecy. Are children exempted from taking this Oath? No, according to the Appendix. They must still take the Oath that includes excommunication latae sententiae ipso facto (whatever that means). Nobody can exempt anyone from taking the Oath except by the Supreme Pontiff.

There is a huge section on how the victim is interrogated on his or her personal lifestyle but the beamishboy is too tired to go on.

A DAY OF MOURNING

The beamishboy has suffered a cruel blow of fate. A minor indiscretion was all it took. I was caught accessing internet in school when I should be in class. The matter was blown out of proportion. Parents were informed. Suspicion of addiction. The usual fake concern by adults for the poor little thing. He needs counselling. Internet addiction is so common among the young. He needs to have restricted access into the internet. Parents are more than eager to cooperate. J has been informed and he will enforce whatever my parents decide. J is a good chap but don't forget, he's a very old man and he won't turn a blind eye.

My parents will draw a timetable for me. J will enforce it. The life as I know it is over.

Portugal

After posting on where one may buy the best gingerbread in the whole world, I thought I should not forget to mention a really great shop in Lisbon that is just across the road from this restaurant. I had a good time in this restaurant more because there was so much water round it. The food was nothing special; it was good but I think I prefer pastries. I'm using this restaurant as a guide to get to my pastry shop which is just across the road from this restaurant.


Sorry, there is a park after you cross the road but it's a small park and you just cut through the park and you'll get to this pastry shop. I can't post a pic of the shop because the beamishboy features too much in the photos. Hehe. But here is the wrapper of the pastries. This shop is really cool. It sells the best egg tarts in the world.

The beamishboy loves food!!!

I've posted a photograph of the best meal on earth - steak and kidney pie at the George & Vulture. Now, I'll take my readers to a quiet lonely shop that sells the best gingerbread on this planet. Here's a picture of the shop that I went to one afternoon. I've blocked off J who's just emerged from the shop with a bag of gingerbread he's got for me!!! A little about J whom you'll see more often (blocked off of course). J is a dear friend to me. He used to work for the family before my Grandpa passed away. He now accompanies me to many places that I go to and he will usually be connected to my photos in some way - either he's taking my pics or he's in the photos. He's very old but he's quite a sport and, like me, he loves to travel.

Vegetarianism will make you a vegetable.

Folksies blokesies!!!! The latest earth-shattering research shows that vegetarianism can in fact turn you into a vegetable if it persists long enough. Perhaps not quite a vegetable but your brain can shrink significantly.

You need B12 which is found in milk and dairy products, meat, liver and fish. Booze is also bad for the brain and can cause shrinkage. Being fat is also another factor that can cause shrinkage.

The beamishboy eats meat, liver and fish, drinks milk, does not drink alcohol and is slim. Ergo, the beamishboy has a good brain. Hehe.

Here's the article:

Click here for the link

Brain shrink risk of veggie diet

By JANE SYMONS

Published: 10 Sep 2008

TURNING vegetarian could shrink your brain – but Marmite sarnies help protect it.

People with low levels of vitamin B12 are SIX times more likely to suffer brain loss, researchers at Oxford University have discovered.

Vegans and vegetarians — such as Heather Mills, Russell Brand and Big Brother's Chanelle Houghton — are the most likely to be deficient because the best sources of the vitamin are meat, particularly liver, milk and fish.

Vitamin B12 deficiency can also cause anaemia and inflammation of the nervous system.

Yeast extracts such as Marmite are one of the few vegetarian foods which provide good levels of the vitamin.

The link was discovered by scientists who used memory tests, physical checks and brain scans to examine 107 people between the ages of 61 and 87.

When the volunteers were retested five years later the medics found those with the lowest levels of vitamin B12 were also the most likely to have brain shrinkage. It confirms earlier research showing a link between brain atrophy and low levels of B12.

Here Sun Health looks at the science of smart eating.

GO EASY ON THE BOOZE

Brain scans of more than 1,800 people found that people who downed 14 drinks or more a week had 1.6 per cent more brain shrinkage than teetotallers.

Women in their seventies were the most at risk.

Beer does less damage than wine according to a study in Alcohol and Alcoholism.

Researchers found that the hippocampus - the part of the brain that stores memories — was 10 per cent smaller in beer drinkers than those who stuck to wine.

And don’t inhale, cannabis has been shown to have the same brain-rotting effect.

EAT LESS

Being overweight or obese is linked to brain loss, Swedish researchers discovered.

Scans of around 300 women found that those with brain shrink had an average body mass index of 27

And for every one point increase in their BMI the loss rose by 13 to 16 per cent.

A BMI 25 to 30 is classed as overweight, above 30 is clinically obese. Calculate your BMI

Dr Deborah Gustafson of University Hospital in Göteborg says obesity increases the risk of high blood pressure and cardiovascular disease, which are both thought to contribute to brain drain.

She adds: “Obesity may also increase the secretion of cortisol, which could lead to atrophy.”

GET FISHY

The omega-3 oils found in fish reduce the risk of dementia and other mental disorders says Fernando Gómez-Pinilla of the University of California, Los Angeles.

He says they increase flexibility in synapses in the brain - the bits that transmit information - and boost memory and learning.

A Brief History of the Church

I have been asked many times how the church began. A common question asked by RCs is what church did the Apostles found? They look expectantly in your eyes hoping that you would say "The RC church of course!" but that would be a dreadful untruth. Many RCs are under the misconception that because Protestantism only came about in the Middle Ages, the Protestant church couldn't have been founded by the Apostles.

What they fail to understand is that to the Apostles, it's the teachings that are important. St Paul writes that he who comes to you with a different gospel and different teachings from what are taught by the Apostles, let him be accursed.

What then did the Apostles teach? What better way to look at the Apostles' teachings than to look at what they wrote.

In a Christian forum, I happened to write a short history of the church. Scriptural quotations came from my memory but they are relatively accurate. I thought it best to reproduce what I wrote in this blog so that I can refer future inquirers here. Here it is:



Jesus' first disciples started house churches. They met in homes and carried out the teachings of Jesus and His Apostles. The manner of worship, the doctrines and practices were all clearly written and detailed for us in the New Testament.

The churches flourished. They were not referred to as a single church under a single man. They were called churches. That is why addresses were made to the Seven Churches, etc (as in the Book of Revelation). But the churches were under severe persecution by some Roman emperors. The early christians in these churches stood firm to their ground and many were martyred.

It is difficult to say that there were no departures from apostolic teaching in the early church. Even Paul made it clear that there were threats from various quarters that were preaching a different gospel.

Then came the conversion of the Roman emperor. It was a mixed blessing. On the one hand, persecution stopped. But all temple priests converted immediately and many joined the ranks of churches formed under Roman rule. You can't blame them. They had no vocation apart from religion and since the official religion had changed, they became overnight "Christians". Anyway, this was a common occurrence in the ancient world.

Even before the conversion of the Emperor, there were seeds of heretical teachings. These can be seen in the non-canonical works - writings that were not accepted as divinely inspired because they did not meet the criteria for the canon - they may not have met the "rule of faith", were of dubious apostolic origin or were not accepted by the people of God as genuine. One thread of the "wrong" teachings are the natural human need of a motherly figure. Most religions have goddesses. Christianity is starkly patriarchical. One of the Marys could have been chosen: Mary the mother of Jesus or Mary Magdalen. Naturally, Mary the mother of Jesus could evoke stronger emotions. She was there at his cross and she was, after all, the mother.

A sign that even before the conversion of the Roman emperor, this need for a mother had germinated to the practice of venerating her can be seen in the non-canonical/heretical gospel called the Gospel of James. The Gospel of James is the only book in which Mary was elevated to a height totally unknown in the canonical books and venerated. Some people today try not to draw attention to the fact that the Gospel of James is as heretical as the Gospel of Thomas, etc by calling it the Protoevangelion of James. But make no mistake about it - it was called the Gospel of James since the earliest times. But all are agreed that this book is non-canonical.

The NT books on the other hand are very un-Marian in a sense. The epistles did not breathe a word about Mary. The only mere mention of Mary appears in the Gospels and for good reason: she was bearing Christ. In other parts of the Gospels where she makes an appearance, it's usually to show how misguided she was. Examples are:

1. The temple scene. Mary and Joseph cannot find the 12-year-old Jesus and finally finds him discoursing with the Temple Priests. When Mary remonstrates, Jesus retorts, "Do you not know that I must be about my Father's business?"

2. The gospels say that Jesus' family - including his brothers want him to go home to presumably Galilee because many even think he has gone mad. On one occasion, his Disciples tell Jesus that His mother is at the door asking to see Him. Jesus replies, "Who is my mother? Who are my brothers?" Then turning to his disciples, Jesus says, "Those who listen to me are my mother, my brothers and sisters".

3. A woman in the crowd shouts out to Jesus, "Blessed are the breasts that gave thee suckle and the womb that gave thee birth." Jesus replies, "Rather, blessed are those who do the will of God". This appears in Luke's gospel.

The cult of Mary was a natural progression of our human need for a soft motherly touch to our otherwise patriarchical faith. But it cannot be considered even remotely apostolic.

It was easy after Rome had converted for this cult of Mary to flourish. And flourished it did. First she Mary became "Mother of God" or the Theotokos. That was OK because presumably, the thrust of the whole idea was to stress on the divine nature of Jesus. Any objection to the name for Mary is countered with the emotional assertion that Jesus is God and anyone who refuses to call Mary the Mother of God is in fact denying divinity to Jesus. Century after century sees the slow departure of the church from the original teachings of the Apostles. Mary is soon crowned the Queen of Heaven. She becomes co-redeemer with Christ because didn't she bear Jesus in the first place. She becomes sinless (as Christ is). She is declared not to have been tainted with the original sin. As if that's not enough, she is bodily assumed into heaven (that's what Assumption means) and suffers no death.

There are many other departures from apostolic teachings by the church and I've only named one. The selling of indulgences to enrich the coffers of the church is one. Of course with the Reformation, these departures are highlighted and a call is made for Christians to return to apostolic teachings.

Some will say, "But Jesus promises that the gates of Hades will not prevail against the church".

That verse if correctly interpreted simply means "Death will have no power over Christians". Gates of Hades is the common phrase that means death. The church in the NT always refers to Christians and never church officials.

But even if we take the church to be church officials and the Gates of Hades to be the powers of the Devil, that promise has still been fulfilled. That promise does not mean that Christians will never be deceived by false teachings. The epistles of Paul show us that there were many false teachings floating about then and by important figures too. It does not mean that the church (ie Christians) can never be deceived and for any length of time. But if that interpretation is to be taken, it does mean that ultimately, the truth of God will prevail and not the powers of the Devil. As we have seen in history, that promise is fulfilled with the Reformation and the attention of the whole of Christendom is turned to the original teachings of Christ and the Apostles and the importance of reading the NT by the common people is emphasised when it was once forbidden or discouraged.

That is a brief summary of the history of the church by the beamishboy.

The Booker Shortlist has been announced. Have a look at it. A pity Sir Salman Rushdie didn't make it beyond the Longlist. I'm glad Amitav Ghosh is in. I just got his The Hungry Tide and I think he's a great writer.

Will the beamishboy see his name on the Booker Longlist next year? Let me check with Faber and Faber, my publishers. Hehe. It's always Faber and Faber, isn't it? They publish all my Lit books anyway.

I have a few questions on underage porn after reading this on the BBC. Would I be guilty of producing underage porn if I took pics of myself with my own camera? Would I be charged and convicted? If I posted the pics online (not that I would), would that be disseminating porn? Isn't the law an ass? Isn't this another example of the subjugation of young people by self-appointed adults? It's a crime for me to take pics of myself! Wow!

Folks, go to this site and watch the video. This is really fascinating. The article in the BBC says that in 2001, the Talibans destroyed two huge statues of Buddha that were built two thousand years ago in this amazing structure of caves and secret tunnels. Although I was of course around in 2001, I don't recall hearing anything about it back then. Why didn't the world put a stop to the madness of these Talibans? America did nothing because there was nothing in it for them?

What a shame! What kind of world will the "adults" hand over to the "children"?

Saepe ne utile quidem est scire quid futurum sit

Recently, a friend of mine was told the bad news that he had an incurable form of cancer. He was told the worst. Or rather, his parents were told and they in turn thought it best to tell him and he told me.

I don't blame his parents. It must have been a difficult decision to take. Deep within me, I agree with Cicero but would add that often it's just that we don't know. Since ignorance doesn't change the fact at all, neither should knowledge change our mood or affect us in any way.

Vita perseverat. To know or not to know? With knowledge, one can prepare better. After all, didn't Seneca say, Timendi causa est nescire? Some will say it contradicts what Cicero says but I think they complement each other. Cicero's quotation is good if you don't want to know. But if you already knew, Seneca's wisdom applies.

As I've said before, I don't really care for politics. But I just got a spam email that might be interesting. It refers me to Time magazine that tells us that Mayor Palin is a book burner - she once tried to ban a list of books and tried to get the librarian fired when she refused. Read Time magazine

I also discovered in this site what the list of books was. Librarian.net Read in particular the list of books Palin wanted to ban.

I'll reproduce the list and try to see what her objection might be (my comments appear immediately after; where I have no comments, it means I haven't read those books):

A Clockwork Orange by Anthony Burgess The reason must be obvious.
A Wrinkle in Time by Madeleine L’Engle
Annie on My Mind by Nancy Garden
As I Lay Dying by William Faulkner
Blubber by Judy Blume
Brave New World by Aldous Huxley I can't think what's so objectionable.
Bridge to Terabithia by Katherine Paterson
Canterbury Tales by Chaucer I think it must be this line in the Merchant's Tale: "Gan pullen the smog and in he throng".
Carrie by Stephen King
Catch-22 by Joseph Heller
Christine by Stephen King
Confessions by Jean-Jacques Rousseau
Cujo by Stephen King
Curses, Hexes, and Spells by Daniel Cohen
Daddy’s Roommate by Michael Willhoite
Day No Pigs Would Die by Robert Peck
Death of a Salesman by Arthur Miller
Decameron by Boccaccio
East of Eden by John Steinbeck
Fallen Angels by Walter Myers
Fanny Hill (Memoirs of a Woman of Pleasure) by John Cleland The reason is obvious but this is such an old book. There are more modern ones that will make this book seem so tame.
Flowers For Algernon by Daniel Keyes
Forever by Judy Blume
Grendel by John Champlin Gardner
Halloween ABC by Eve Merriam
Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone by J.K. Rowling What's wrong with a book for kids?
Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets by J.K. Rowling
Harry Potter and the Prizoner of Azkaban by J.K. Rowling
Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire by J.K. Rowling
Have to Go by Robert Munsch
Heather Has Two Mommies by Leslea Newman
How to Eat Fried Worms by Thomas Rockwell
Huckleberry Finn by Mark Twain
I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings by Maya Angelou
Impressions edited by Jack Booth
In the Night Kitchen by Maurice Sendak
It’s Okay if You Don’t Love Me by Norma Klein
James and the Giant Peach by Roald Dahl
Lady Chatterley’s Lover by D.H. Lawrence Mild by today's standard.
Leaves of Grass by Walt Whitman
Little Red Riding Hood by Jacob and Wilhelm Grimm
Lord of the Flies by William Golding Oh come on!
Love is One of the Choices by Norma Klein
Lysistrata by Aristophanes
More Scary Stories in the Dark by Alvin Schwartz
My Brother Sam Is Dead by James Lincoln Collier and Christopher Collier
My House by Nikki Giovanni
My Friend Flicka by Mary O’Hara
Night Chills by Dean Koontz
Of Mice and Men by John Steinbeck I really don't know what's wrong with this except perhaps Palin objects to the murder scene at the end when the little guy blew off the brain of the big guy.
On My Honor by Marion Dane Bauer
One Day in The Life of Ivan Denisovich by Alexander Solzhenitsyn
One Flew Over The Cuckoo’s Nest by Ken Kesey
One Hundred Years of Solitude by Gabriel Garcia Marquez I've just bought the book. Haven't read it yet.
Ordinary People by Judith Guest
Our Bodies, Ourselves by Boston Women’s Health Collective
Prince of Tides by Pat Conroy
Revolting Rhymes by Roald Dahl I've read other books by this guy. Isn't he the guy famous for writing Charlie and the Chocolate Factory and other such innocuous kids' stories?
Scary Stories 3: More Tales to Chill Your Bones by Alvin Schwartz
Scary Stories in the Dark by Alvin Schwartz
Separate Peace by John Knowles
Silas Marner by George Eliot This is a marvellous work by Eliot. I can't see any objection to it. Perhaps Palin is afraid of a portrayal of epileptic seizures?
Slaughterhouse-Five by Kurt Vonnegut, Jr.
Tarzan of the Apes by Edgar Rice Burroughs
The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn by Mark Twain
The Adventures of Tom Sawyer by Mark Twain
The Bastard by John Jakes
The Catcher in the Rye by J.D. Salinger I think this is a boring book. Didn't like it but I don't think there's anything wrong with it.
The Chocolate War by Robert Cormier
The Color Purple by Alice Walker
The Devil’s Alternative by Frederick Forsyth
The Figure in the Shadows by John Bellairs
The Grapes of Wrath by John Steinbeck
The Great Gilly Hopkins by Katherine Paterson
The Handmaid’s Tale by Margaret Atwood
The Headless Cupid by Zilpha Snyder
The Learning Tree by Gordon Parks
The Living Bible by William C. Bower
The Merchant of Venice by William Shakespeare I think Palin should read this and she'll understand why she sounds like Shylock.
The New Teenage Body Book by Kathy McCoy and Charles Wibbelsman
The Pigman by Paul Zindel
The Seduction of Peter S. by Lawrence Sanders
The Shining by Stephen King
The Witches by Roald Dahl
The Witches of Worm by Zilpha Snyder
Then Again, Maybe I Won’t by Judy Blume
To Kill A Mockingbird by Harper Lee I saw the film two years ago.
Twelfth Night by William Shakespeare What can possibly be wrong with this except for the disguise that crosses gender? That might be deemed wrong by ultra-conservative right-wingers.
Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary by the Merriam-Webster Editorial Staff Ban this, by all means. One should only use the Oxford Concise or the Shorter Oxford. Hehe.
Witches, Pumpkins, and Grinning Ghosts: The Story of the Halloween Symbols by Edna Barth

Semi-vegetarianism

Shun meat! See this article why eating meat is not green. Read

It's a long and tedious article but briefly, the process of producing meat increases the greenhouse effect. Meat production produces more greenhouse gases than transport.

The beamishboy will be a semi-vegetarian. The occasional steak and kidney pie and KFC zinger is all right though. Nobody can give up the good old English fare which means lots of chunky meat. French food is too dainty for real men. Hehe.

Here's a pic of the best meal on this planet. Pic was taken at my favourite restaurant, the George & Vulture. This restaurant was mentioned in Charles Dickens' Pickwick Papers.

LOST CIVILISATION

Mankind has always been fascinated by lost civilisations. Forget Atlantis and all the rubbish that our fertile imagination has churned out. Researchers have found a whole new set of cities in what was thought to be virgin jungle deep in the Amazon.

Read it here.

I reproduce the report here:

'Lost towns' discovered in Amazon

A remote area of the Amazon river basin was once home to densely populated towns, Science journal reports.

The Upper Xingu, in west Brazil, was once thought to be virgin forest, but in fact shows traces of extensive human activity.

Researchers found evidence of a grid-like pattern of settlements connected by road networks and arranged around large central plazas.

There are signs of farming, wetland management, and possibly fish farms.

The settlements are now almost completely overgrown by rainforest.

The ancient urban communities date back to before the first Europeans set foot in the Upper Xingu region of the Brazilian Amazon in the 15th Century.

Urban planning

Professor Mike Heckenberger, from the University of Florida, in Gainesville, said: "These are not cities, but this is urbanism, built around towns."

"They have quite remarkable planning and self-organisation, more so than many classical examples of what people would call urbanism," he said. Although the remains are almost invisible, they can be identified by members of the Kuikuro tribe, who are thought to be direct descendents of the people who built the towns.

The tell-tale traces included "dark earth" that indicated past human waste dumps or farming, and concentrations of pottery shards and earthworks.

The researchers also made use of satellite images and GPS navigation to uncover and map the settlements over the course of a decade.

The communities consisted of clusters of 60-hectare (150-acre) towns and smaller villages spread out over the rainforest.

Road network

Like medieval European and ancient Greek towns, those forming the Amazonian urban landscape were surrounded by large walls. These were composed of earthworks, the remains of which have survived.

Each community had an identical road, always pointing north-east to south-west, which are connected to a central plaza.

The roads were always oriented this way in keeping with the mid-year summer solstice.

Evidence was found of dams and artificial ponds - thought to have been used for fish farming - as well as open areas and large compost heaps.

The people who once lived in the settlements are thought to have been wiped out by European colonists and the diseases they brought with them.

Trouble in Bangkok

Bangkok is now under a state of emergency.

For details, click here

Here is a pic taken by the beamishboy in Bangkok. It's hilarious how a forum friend of mine told me that his nephew thought I didn't really exist because I couldn't have travelled that much. But the beamishboy has been to lots of places. I've watermarked this pic to claim copyright over it. I shouldn't be surprised if newspapers all over the world want to publish my photo because it does in a nutshell encapsulate all the beauty and oriental-ness of Thailand.

Answered Prayer?

I recently recovered from a bout of high fever and flu. A friend of mine told me to give thanks to God for an answered prayer. The truth is I didn't pray for healing during my illness. When my fever was very high, I vaguely recall reciting the Kyries only because it is repetitive and possibly I was bored but I didn't pray.

Do modern people still expect to die from a fever? If 99.99% of the time, we have total recovery from a bout of fever, do we still attribute the recovery to answered prayers, if prayers had been said in the first place? In the unlikely event that one dies from a fever, one wouldn't be in the position to talk about unanswered prayers. More likely, stories will abound about answered prayers only because most of the time, the outcome appears very much as if prayers had been answered.

I think this best illustrates our lives: We live in a world with minor earthquakes all the time. Those within a five-mile radius to the epicentre of the earthquake will be utterly destroyed. Those outside of the five-mile radius survive. Most of the time, we are too far from the epicentre. So we live to tell the tale of answered prayers. Sometimes, we are close to the epicentre and we don't live to tell tales of unanswered prayers. We just die. Sometimes we are far enough to the epicentre and we survive the earthquake but we sustain injuries. We're still able to tell tales of answered prayers. Dum spiro, spero.

There'll come a time when we'll be too close to the epicentre of an earthquake. That's when our tales of answered prayers will come to an end. Others will continue to tell their own amazing tales in their own lives until they too meet their end.