This is a good observation. My take is that this picture is showing a guardian angel watching over the children. Who is known to nurture (not to be sexist) over the centuries - mothers -women.

Also, many artists are trying to project beauty in a subject and not to be bold - but we are pretty beautiful. Kidding. Artists for a long time have associated beauty with the female form.

However, as a woman when I think of angels I always think of Saint Michael. I want a strong angel that has your back when you need him!

What is next - Bishops Body Wash

The Pope’s Cologne will probably mostly reveal his aesthetic taste. Judging from the cologne itself, it shows a man of refined taste who obviously valued subtlety, elegance, and even the rare. The scent has an ancient charm about it, especially when the floral notes start being felt, that is quite remarkable. It is a perfume recipe made in a time when flowers in masculine colognes were felt to be perfectly natural hence an absolute lack of showiness and complete sense of maturity and naturalness about the floral notes in this composition. Being a cologne meant to be worn by the Pope, it had to be restrained in principle and it is in fact; there is no unexpected flamboyance or hidden coquetry pointing its nose. Naturally, the animalic notes are extremely discreet. Perhaps we can also imagine that a certain ethereal quality, a lightness and freshness were cultivated as befitting the pope’s image. The citruses and lemon verbena are invigorating, a definite plus for a man in a public function. The fragrance is that of a man of patrician or aristocratic tastes.

The combination of citruses, lemon verbena and violet is enchanting, almost childlike in its softness and innocence. One feels inspired to make a drink that would be scented with these two main notes, violet and lemon. The “visual impression” the colors yellow and mauve suggest next to each other is also appealing.

From the flacon, the first aromas that strike the nose are citruses, woods, and amber. The start of the perfume is very citrus-y, a bit candied evoking lemon drops, like an outburst of freshly squeezed lemon juice with undertones of oceanic ambergris. The cologne then warms up becomes more powdery and vanillic but in a very understated way. Then there is a more vegetal, aromatic impression suggestive of the underbrush which kicks in. One smells a stylized subtle violet with some clove in it, perhaps some carnation since the powdery feel becomes a little bit more accentuated gliding even into a creamy impression. The blend at this point feels very elegant and refined, aristocratic even, showcasing an accord that feels rare and unusual. Very delicate floral nuances arise betraying tinges of rose, peach and then mauve. It smells a little bit of orange-blossom scented mauve guimauve, but in a very elegant manner. The woods then become more apparent and the most finely textured one of them, sandalwood in particular, it seems. There is also a little bit of a birch tar impression, but very discreet as the dry-down evokes a more familiar impression found in Russian leather scents. The longer dry-down smells a bit of the woodiness of orris. All the while the citruses impart their freshness to this elegantissime scent.

The recipe of the 19th century cologne was faithfully followed by Dr. Fred Hass (he happens to be US Poet-Laureate Robert Hass’ brother by the way) therefore the longevity is also authentically that of a perfume from that period. Fred Hass told us that he prefers not to touch the original recipe. It leaves nevertheless a very subtle scent on the skin, which contributes to the overall feeling of authentic old-world elegance.

Marie-Helene Wagner
December 3, 2007
http://www.thepopescologne.com

I bet that game still smarts a bit! I was expecting maybe a 3-point difference, but happily accept the 14 points. And it’s also nice to see that Uga VII didn’t get eaten by Mike VI.

Now we just need to make it two years in a row against the Gators…

Trip

Yes you did address most of my points and i will leave them at that , i wont be looking at another theists pro religion suggested proof .Ive already read many ,and at this moment i just dont have the time.

But one point of mine i think you might have missed.

You said:I did laugh at the wording of the advertisement. You see, the term atheist means that there is no God. But here we have a group of atheists that seem to waver on this point, saying there “probably” is no God. That’s funny! It’s like a math teacher not insisting that 1 + 1 = 2, but saying that 1 + 1 “probably” equals 2. Don’t you find that even just a bit funny?”

Well as ive already pointed out above .Had they had worded it “there is no God” ,it could have been deemed offensive and some religious group with a big bag of money from tythes .Might have just decided to be so Christianly as to try to (sue them).Because there is laws in countrys for the religious that protect their beliefs against suggested offence.

Yet sadly if any wording like “there is a God” that might offend those that believe there is not !.Well its a case of double standards isnt it ! because for those of non beliefs its suggested to just be “oh to bad we dont care”. (lovely Christianly way to think)

But anyway like i also tried to point out .In reality thus far going (by matter of facts) nothing can be categorically as total fact (either way).There being a God or there not being any Gods!.

So in taking that in mind if we spoke in truths of the matter! any of disbelief would actually in being honest! have to said to admit to only being agnostic .Doubt of Gods!.

Many have laughed at the likes of Dawkins in the passed before and even in such glee clung to every word he`s said in looking for some small slip up.And when he`s answered before as to how sure he was of there is no gods ,something like 90 or 95%.They Christians thought it a joke . (funny they find a honest remark funny)

Yet being the scientist that he is its only a honest scientific type view to take ! .

I then ask in all (honesty) who is the most funniest when judging between those with no categorically proof as total fact claim “god is real” , or those that doubt .

All the best and keep up with the humor .

P.S …I follow my own thoughts .Hawkins or anyone else is not my guru.

Thanks for the feedback! Just wanted to reply to some of your points…

• My comment about it being “offensive for, like, half a second” was my humorous way of saying that it really wasn’t offensive at all. If you read some of my other posts, I tend to use a bit of sarcasm in my writing.

• I did laugh at the wording of the advertisement. You see, the term atheist means that there is no God. But here we have a group of atheists that seem to waver on this point, saying there “probably” is no God. That’s funny! It’s like a math teacher not insisting that 1 + 1 = 2, but saying that 1 + 1 “probably” equals 2. Don’t you find that even just a bit funny?

• I wasn’t laughing to be nasty, and I don’t see how my religion automatically makes me a nasty person. Also, your charge of bigotry is unfounded. What in my post triggered that comment? A lot of my humor is self-deprecating (see my post on “Catholic Outreach, Southern Style” for a sampling, or browse my whole “Humor” category). If anything, I probably poke fun of my own religious beliefs more than anything else. Laughter is one of the great joys of life. Maybe I should have categorized this post under the “Humor” category, too.

• You wrote that there is “no real good evidence” that proves God’s existence. Please re-read the later part of my post, which offers links to the website of Boston College philosophy professor Dr. Peter Kreeft. He is quite an intelligent man and is a theist. He offers both written and audio-recorded resources explaining the rational proofs for God’s existence. I invite you to explore these and consider this viewpoint. You might disagree with it, but you can’t claim that theism is not rational.

• You suggested that the ad could have been worded, “There is no God…” I agree! I think this would have made the ad stronger in terms of communicating the atheist position. In it’s current form, the ad lacks conviction. Changing it to your suggested wording would more accurately convey the atheist message. This may, as you say, get other religious people “up in arms” but that’s okay. I’m not saying that this organization doesn’t have the right to communicate its message or use advertising as the medium for its message. I’m all for the free exchange of ideas. Censorship is bad.

• “Religious folks don’t care” if non-believers are offended by our religion?: not true. I care. I think that the path to true lasting happiness is through belief in God, loving one’s neighbors and participating in the sacramental life of the Church. I try to share this with others and respect those who disagree with me. True, some might be offended, but we don’t have a right to not be offended. My doctor might offend me by telling me that I’m an out-of-shape slob and that I need to eat better and exercise. But if it’s true and it will help me live a better life, then maybe I need to be offended every once in a while. Sometimes, the truth hurts. Sometimes, the most loving words can be painful. But if someone cares about you, they run the risk of offending you with the truth every once in a while.

Well, I think that addresses most of your points. Thanks again for reading the blog and for taking the time to comment.

Why would it ever be offensive ? is it because you dont think those that think another way should be allowed to have a voice?.There is much advertising for pro religion it may be offending to those who think its a load of rubbish.Maybe it might be some of those have decide to exercise what rights they still have and been involved in putting thoughts on a bus .

You said:”When I read it again, the part about “probably” made me laugh. Here we have an atheist group that can’t even be fully convinced that God doesn’t exist. ”

Yes well seeing you obviously seem to be religious and so possibly likely to be a bit nasty from the nasty things you read .In not understanding things that are about being equal and fair im not surprised with a small taint of bigotry you found it a reason to be nasty and look for a reason to laugh .

Religious people even though they have no real good evidence to prove Gods still suggest “god is a fact”.This without real proof ! is really i suggest not to be thought the most intelligent approach to take .But then maybe it could be said that religion doesnt rely so much on intelligence but a whole lot more on what is called faith.

Besides . Did you realise or even think to understand that had these people said “there is no god” you religious folk would have been even more up in arms. And it could most likely been ruled to be offencesive seeing as the world thus far has been biased towards thoughts of those with no belief .And who knows, these religious bigots might have even been so nasty as to try and sue somebody .

Like you most religious folk dont care (even though you read a book that suggest you should) if your thoughts and advertising or monthly visits in our gates peddling your wares are at all offensive to us .You give no thought to anybody else but yourselves ! in your selfrightiouse thoughtlessness .

Thankfully though you are not all the same because there have been at least some religious folk online on their blogs and commenting on others , who have said and agreed that what has happened is quite ok .

Come on if you believe in the (good) book . Walk the walk ! dont just talk the talk .

After all its partly people like yourself who turn people against religion .

Enough said ?