PDA

View Full Version : Could a 'nicer' Christianity have still been influentual?


Derek Jackson
November 12th, 2007, 10:12 PM
In OTL Christianity, which seems to me as a respectful agnostice to have many good features in principle, seems to have been deeply influenced by authoritarianism, anti semitism and mysogyny in practice

Could a gentler faith have still had mass membership?

Is authoritarianism to some extent implicit in any mono theism?

DominusNovus
November 12th, 2007, 10:22 PM
I don't think so. Early Christianity flourished without being 'mean.' I'd say its more a result of the environment. If Europe went Mithraic instead, it likely would have been mean as well. Though, perhaps an Esoteric religion might not be authoritarian, or at least in the same way.

Johnrankins
November 12th, 2007, 10:41 PM
My guess is that would be run over by even "less nice" Moslems. Remember the Crusades happened because the Moslems attacked Constantinople so they were the ones who started it.

DMA
November 12th, 2007, 10:43 PM
Well if one looks to the teachings of Jesus, it was always meant to be "nice".

So are we talking about the human construction of the Church or the original message of Jesus?

I only ask because there's a fundamental difference between "Christianity" & the "Church".

panzerjay
November 12th, 2007, 11:06 PM
i doubt it. how do you draw the great unwashed to the cross without the fire and brimstone and divine annotated exceptionalism?

The Sicilian
November 12th, 2007, 11:36 PM
Well if one looks to the teachings of Jesus, it was always meant to be "nice".

Really, because I seem to recall this:
'Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth.
I have not come to bring peace but a sword.'
Matthew 10:34

I'm not entirely sure what a 'nice' guy would do with a sword...:D

Dan1988
November 12th, 2007, 11:50 PM
Really, because I seem to recall this:
'Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth.
I have not come to bring peace but a sword.'
Matthew 10:34

I'm not entirely sure what a 'nice' guy would do with a sword...:D


Ah, but according to the Gospel of Thomas:


Jesus said, "Perhaps people think that I have come to cast peace upon the world. They do not know that I have come to cast conflicts upon the earth: fire, sword, war.

For there will be five in a house: there'll be three against two and two against three, father against son and son against father, and they will stand alone."

I think he was saying this to reject Messianic philosophy. Maybe if the word was changed to something else, . . .

DMA
November 12th, 2007, 11:52 PM
Really, because I seem to recall this:
'Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth.
I have not come to bring peace but a sword.'
Matthew 10:34

I'm not entirely sure what a 'nice' guy would do with a sword...:D



Nice example of how to distort the original message. You would make for a great bishop. :D

Seriously, though, Jesus knew that his message would be violently disputed by the unbelievers. This verse was not a message, however, for the how believers where to behave. Instead Jesus gave the following...


The New Commandment...


Love one another as I have loved you.

&;

Take the log out of your own eye first, before you take the speck out of your brother's eye

& how about;

For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him.

Snake Featherston
November 13th, 2007, 12:01 AM
Of course, a few months after he went up on the cloud, God returned to his smiting ways.....

DMA
November 13th, 2007, 12:04 AM
Of course, a few months after he went up on the cloud, God returned to his smiting ways.....


Ok, I'll bite... How so?

The Sicilian
November 13th, 2007, 12:30 AM
I'm joking DMA. I don't think that Jesus came to murder us with a sword. Most of what he said was okay.

DMA
November 13th, 2007, 12:39 AM
I'm joking DMA. I don't think that Jesus came to murder us with a sword. Most of what he said was okay.


My bad. I gathered you were. I will admit, though, that my dry Australian humour sometimes gets lost in the translation... or interpretation... so to speak :D

Dan1988
November 13th, 2007, 12:41 AM
DMA, don't worry. He got me too - hence the quote from the Gospel of Thomas.

Snake Featherston
November 13th, 2007, 12:43 AM
Ananias and Sapphira ring a bell? Incidentally, this makes me wonder why Chris Paolini named that dragon of his after somebody Yahweh smited because she didn't give him any money. Did he have the soft bigotry of low expectations? :D

DMA
November 13th, 2007, 12:44 AM
Well I could have also mentioned the bit about turning the other cheek, but somehow that's been reinterpreted as...

if someone slaps you, call in an airstrike and naplam the bastard! :D

The Sicilian
November 13th, 2007, 12:50 AM
jEzUS WAS a SW0rds mURderz!!1!1 HaZ0r!

Dan1988
November 13th, 2007, 01:10 AM
B gun hypron.

The Sicilian
November 13th, 2007, 01:17 AM
i am teh hyprons. if yUo banns me, i wlii giv youthe bad tuch!

Dan1988
November 13th, 2007, 04:23 AM
How are you gentlemen!! All your base are belong to us. You are on the way to destruction. You have no chance to survive make your time.

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA

Ridwan Asher
November 13th, 2007, 04:32 AM
My guess is that would be run over by even "less nice" Moslems. Remember the Crusades happened because the Moslems attacked Constantinople so they were the ones who started it.

Yea right... :rolleyes:

MerryPrankster
November 13th, 2007, 04:37 AM
Perhaps something can happen post-Constantine.

When Christianity was a minority religion, I believe Justin Martyr or perhaps Tertullian wrote a treatise on why religious freedom was a good thing, but according to Gibbon, post-Constantine some theologians got the idea that God would punish the magistrate if he did not enforce His law (or the theologians' interpretation thereof).

Whoever got the idea it was okay for the State to enforce orthodoxy could be killed off before he can start writing, perhaps?

Also, IIRC Arius of Alexandria was critical of Christianity being the state religion, claiming that Constantine "damned the soul with gold" and instead of "whipping the back, tickled the belly." Perhaps a greater split between church and state during the Christian Imperial period can arise somehow?

seraphim74
November 13th, 2007, 07:28 AM
Actually, Constantine didn't make christianity state religion, only stopped persecutions and gave christians the same rights non christians had. The persecutions of not-christians by Roman Empire started with Theodosius.

Problem is I don't know if it is possible for christian emperors NOT to persecute pagans (Constantine was baptized on his deathbed). Every monotheistic religion is about one and only true faith, so all others are wrong (in best case) or evil (typical approach of early monotheisms), and evil must be eradicated. Also, Roman Empire had a long tradition of persecuting chritians, so it had to show how good christians they became.

Hendryk
November 13th, 2007, 10:30 AM
Problem is I don't know if it is possible for christian emperors NOT to persecute pagans (Constantine was baptized on his deathbed). Every monotheistic religion is about one and only true faith, so all others are wrong (in best case) or evil (typical approach of early monotheisms), and evil must be eradicated. Also, Roman Empire had a long tradition of persecuting chritians, so it had to show how good christians they became.
I'd personally like to see a TL with a Roman empire in which Christians form a plurality but coexist with other faiths. Perhaps this would make Christianity a "voluntary universalist" religion like Buddhism, in the sense of "Our message is valid for everyone who cares to receive it, but if someone doesn't want to, no problem".

MerryPrankster
November 13th, 2007, 01:11 PM
I'd personally like to see a TL with a Roman empire in which Christians form a plurality but coexist with other faiths. Perhaps this would make Christianity a "voluntary universalist" religion like Buddhism, in the sense of "Our message is valid for everyone who cares to receive it, but if someone doesn't want to, no problem".

Unless the universalist faction takes over (not sure how realistic that is, although I've heard annihilationism and universalism were alternative views that had some following in the early Church), Hell is going to be part and parcel of the faith.

I don't think a "we're all good" doctrine is going to work. However, even the fundamentalists post-Enlightenment eschew violence (instead threatening divine mayhem later on), so might there be a means of getting this attitude about 1500 years early?

MerryPrankster
November 13th, 2007, 01:14 PM
Actually, Constantine didn't make christianity state religion, only stopped persecutions and gave christians the same rights non christians had. The persecutions of not-christians by Roman Empire started with Theodosius.

Problem is I don't know if it is possible for christian emperors NOT to persecute pagans (Constantine was baptized on his deathbed). Every monotheistic religion is about one and only true faith, so all others are wrong (in best case) or evil (typical approach of early monotheisms), and evil must be eradicated. Also, Roman Empire had a long tradition of persecuting chritians, so it had to show how good christians they became.

Tis true. I meant that the "God punishes the king if he doesn't punish heretics, non-believers, etc" theology came around after Constantine.

Although Constantine didn't persecute non-Christians, he DID act as the enforcer for the church councils--hence his opposition to Arianism, which was probably the occasion for Arius's rant.

The persecution of Christians under the Roman Empire is greatly exaggerated. Nero's persecutions were restricted to the city of Rome itself, for example, while other persecutions were at the volition of local governors (Pliny, for example). With the exception of Domitian, I'm under the impression Empire-wide shenanigans didn't come around until much later (Diocletion, Decimus).

I don't think attempting to make up for earlier bloodshed was a major factor.

Johnrankins
November 13th, 2007, 01:43 PM
Yea right... :rolleyes:

The Moslems DID attack first. If you attack someone be prepared to face the consequences. The Moslems attacked so they are the ones to blame.

carlton_bach
November 13th, 2007, 01:59 PM
The Moslems DID attack first. If you attack someone be prepared to face the consequences. The Moslems attacked so they are the ones to blame.

Have you heard of the Essentialism trap?

You're in it.

ASk youselves what your position on the violent wing of AIM is, then get back to the debate on the guilt of the inhabitants of Jerusalem in 1099.

Hendryk
November 13th, 2007, 02:33 PM
Unless the universalist faction takes over (not sure how realistic that is, although I've heard annihilationism and universalism were alternative views that had some following in the early Church), Hell is going to be part and parcel of the faith.
Well, as you say, Hell can be a number of different things. As late as Dante's time, there was the idea that virtuous non-Christians could dwell eternally in a not-so-unpleasant place; they wouldn't get to be in God's presence, but nor would they burn in the lake of fire.

But I don't think theological speculations about the afterlife are really a factor either way. Christianity in Dante's own time was as intolerant as a religion can get, despite what I just said of its concept of a differentiated Hell, and Islam, AFAIK, doesn't have eternal damnation at all; conversely, even most fundamentalists have learned to get along with people whom they believe will be eternally tortured by demons after they die (as a personal aside, I wonder how it's possible to function in society when you're constantly thinking about the unspeakable torments that most people around you will suffer in afterlife, but evidence demonstrates that it is possible). What matters is the decision to accept that people are entitled to believe differently than you do, and this is something that a number of non-European Christian communities accepted early on (the Nasrani come to mind).

Rockingham
November 13th, 2007, 03:33 PM
My guess is that would be run over by even "less nice" Moslems. Remember the Crusades happened because the Moslems attacked Constantinople so they were the ones who started it.

The Moslems DID attack first. If you attack someone be prepared to face the consequences. The Moslems attacked so they are the ones to blame.
Can you bear to ask your self how the the Byzantine/roman empire came by those lands in the first place?

Quite frankly both posts are ignorant.

Their main flaw is also the flaw of this thread.

The association of the people, their morality, and their "niceness" with the state. The state is quintessentially selfish, whether it be Christian or Muslim, no matter the "niceness" of the religion.

It was the Seljuk empire, not the "Moslems". It might have been majority Muslim, but that doesn't make it representative of the religion. Assorting the people of the region into two factions based on religion, and combining it with idea of "they started it" is the root of ME problems today.

By your justiication, the US "started it" with Muslims, giving them the right to blow Americans up. Really, the logic is appalling.

DAv
November 13th, 2007, 04:00 PM
Unless the universalist faction takes over (not sure how realistic that is, although I've heard annihilationism and universalism were alternative views that had some following in the early Church), Hell is going to be part and parcel of the faith.

Well four out of six of the early Churches did accept Universalism as a valid belief. As a Universalist myself, I see it as a crying shame that the concept of an eternal Hell was chosen over that. If Someone other than St. Augustine had been chosen to set the course of the Church as a whole, we might have seen a different take on things.

Keenir
November 13th, 2007, 06:08 PM
My guess is that would be run over by even "less nice" Moslems.

Christianity being gentler causes Islam to be harsh? :confused::confused:

Remember the Crusades happened because the Moslems attacked Constantinople so they were the ones who started it.

I don't know whether to laugh at the thought of that, or shake my head that you seem to believe that.

mojojojo
November 13th, 2007, 07:36 PM
Also, IIRC Arius of Alexandria was critical of Christianity being the state religion, claiming that Constantine "damned the soul with gold" and instead of "whipping the back, tickled the belly." Perhaps a greater split between church and state during the Christian Imperial period can arise somehow?
So early christianity thought whipping people's backs was better than tickling their bellies? That dosen't sound very nice!

Johnrankins
November 13th, 2007, 07:46 PM
Have you heard of the Essentialism trap?

You're in it.

ASk youselves what your position on the violent wing of AIM is, then get back to the debate on the guilt of the inhabitants of Jerusalem in 1099.

True, about Jeruselum as Jews and Moslems should have been treated better (Moslems could have also treated Christians better throughout history) but I hate the way Moslems seem to whine about the Crusades when it never would have happened if they never attacked. It was a long time ago and there can be no getting around the fact that it was Moslems that started the war in the first place.

carlton_bach
November 13th, 2007, 08:32 PM
True, about Jeruselum as Jews and Moslems should have been treated better (Moslems could have also treated Christians better throughout history) but I hate the way Moslems seem to whine about the Crusades when it never would have happened if they never attacked. It was a long time ago and there can be no getting around the fact that it was Moslems that started the war in the first place.

Which war exactly? The one between Islam and Christendom that raged from the 7th century to this day? That doesn't exist. The specific one that started with the declaration of pope Urban? Certainly not.

Mind you I'm not saying the Crusades were an unprovoked aggression against ppeaceful flower children, but to say that 'the Muslims' had only themselves to blame is patently ridiculous. You might as well say that the Roman had it coming in 476 because they started the war when Caesar crossed the Rhine.

Keenir
November 13th, 2007, 10:31 PM
True, about Jeruselum as Jews and Moslems should have been treated better (Moslems could have also treated Christians better throughout history)

Muslim nations allowed Christians to live in Muslim lands.

aside from either Sicily or Sardinia, what Christian nations allowed Muslims to live in Christian lands?

but I hate the way Moslems seem to whine about the Crusades when it never would have happened if they never attacked. It was a long time ago and there can be no getting around the fact that it was Moslems that started the war in the first place.

really? reference, please?

Dan1988
November 13th, 2007, 10:46 PM
Well, if you butterfly away the Reconquista, . . .

Kaptin Kurk
November 13th, 2007, 11:15 PM
Akin to biological evolution, I don't think any religion / philosophy is going to survive unless it has some edge to it, at least enough to thrive in its enviroment. In the 'softer' enviroment of post-Cold War era, softer philosophies / religious interpretations can exist and perhaps thrive.

(Modern Leftist / Agnostic / Athiest are pretty soft (for the most part) compared to their 19th and 20th century Communist forebears don't you think. Hippies don't give their lives for the fatherland, kill capitalist, or burn churches afterall. And modern rightist / theist are pretty soft (for the most part) compared to their Crusading / Colonizing forebears. (it's been a while since even Pat Robertson killed a Jew and stole his property)


So say the world is set to roughness (or fucked upness) level 7. Than any philosophy that absolutely forbids taking fucked up actions up to level 7 is either going to be modified, or abandoned. But progress might lower the world fucked-upness level to 5. Then you only have to be able to level 5 of fucked-up / evil things to survive in that world. And perhaps those still operating at fucked-up level 7 start to be veiwed as barbaric, and their actions even become detromental to their survival...if enough fucked-up level 5 societies / natious band against them.....further lowering the overall fucked-upness of the world...(or the fucked-up 7 could beat the 5er coalition, thereby raising the overall fucked-upness again....it's all contingent...)

mojojojo
November 13th, 2007, 11:27 PM
Akin to biological evolution, I don't think any religion / philosophy is going to survive unless it has some edge to it, at least enough to thrive in its enviroment. In the 'softer' enviroment of post-Cold War era, softer philosophies / religious interpretations can exist and perhaps thrive.

(Modern Leftist / Agnostic / Athiest are pretty soft (for the most part) compared to their 19th and 20th century Communist forebears don't you think. Hippies don't give their lives for the fatherland, kill capitalist, or burn churches afterall. And modern rightist / theist are pretty soft (for the most part) compared to their Crusading / Colonizing forebears. (it's been a while since even Pat Robertson killed a Jew and stole his property)


So say the world is set to roughness (or fucked upness) level 7. Than any philosophy that absolutely forbids taking fucked up actions up to level 7 is either going to be modified, or abandoned. But progress might lower the world fucked-upness level to 5. Then you only have to be able to level 5 of fucked-up / evil things to survive in that world. And perhaps those still operating at fucked-up level 7 start to be veiwed as barbaric, and their actions even become detromental to their survival...if enough fucked-up level 5 societies / natious band against them.....further lowering the overall fucked-upness of the world...(or the fucked-up 7 could beat the 5er coalition, thereby raising the overall fucked-upness again....it's all contingent...)
Very well put!

MerryPrankster
November 14th, 2007, 02:34 AM
Well four out of six of the early Churches did accept Universalism as a valid belief. As a Universalist myself, I see it as a crying shame that the concept of an eternal Hell was chosen over that. If Someone other than St. Augustine had been chosen to set the course of the Church as a whole, we might have seen a different take on things.

Elaborate about the four of six, please.

The notion of eternal Hell existed prior to Augustine--Tertullian positively gloried in people more popular than himself going there (read "De Spectacularis").

MerryPrankster
November 14th, 2007, 02:35 AM
So early christianity thought whipping people's backs was better than tickling their bellies? That dosen't sound very nice!

It was metaphorical--he said that Constantine was as dangerous as the pagan Roman persecutors were, but he was more subtle.

Hendryk
November 14th, 2007, 07:28 AM
Remember the Crusades happened because the Moslems attacked Constantinople so they were the ones who started it.
If you think that "attacking Constantinople" warrants eternal enmity, do look up what happened during the Fourth Crusade (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Crusade) sometime.

carlton_bach
November 14th, 2007, 07:57 AM
Muslim nations allowed Christians to live in Muslim lands.

aside from either Sicily or Sardinia, what Christian nations allowed Muslims to live in Christian lands?


Castile, Aragon, Navarra, Aquitaine, Portugal, Byzantium - all Christian nations that *had* Muslims, really. The story of medieval and early modern Christianity is one of increasing bigotry and exclusion. The Fourth Lateran Council mandated distinctive dress for Jews and Muslims because of the risk of 'good Christians' otherwise not recognising who they were dealing with. This is around 'tipping point', over the next few centuries, Muslims will be expelled from all and Jews from many Latin Christian realms. But before that time, coexistence was the norm.

DAv
November 14th, 2007, 10:55 AM
Elaborate about the four of six, please.

The notion of eternal Hell existed prior to Augustine--Tertullian positively gloried in people more popular than himself going there (read "De Spectacularis").

Oh I'm not denying that the notion of an eternal Hell existed before Augustine but it was due to him that the Church accepted most of the ideas it had throughout its history. As for the early Churches, I'm not entirely sure of the ones which did accept Universalism but as far as I can remember, only the Church in Carthage actually preached eternal damnation at first. Interesting tit-bit, the Churches which accepted Universalism as a valid doctrine had the original Greek translations of the Gospels while those that didn't had the Latin Translations. I could provide links giving more details if you wish.

mojojojo
November 14th, 2007, 01:21 PM
please do, now clear this up does universalism mean every one gets into to heaven? It would seem like a doctrine like that would hamper christianity's success.

DAv
November 14th, 2007, 02:26 PM
please do, now clear this up does universalism mean every one gets into to heaven? It would seem like a doctrine like that would hamper christianity's success.

Effectively, yes it does mean all go to God. You're probably right in saying it might have hampered spreading early Christianity as "Do what we say or you'll be damned for all eternity!" Tends to get more attention than "We're all going to Heaven! YAY!" More's the pity.

As to the links, here's about three of which the third is a Wikipedia article on general Universalism:

http://www.christian-universalism.com/
http://www.christianuniversalist.org/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universalism

Keenir
November 14th, 2007, 05:25 PM
Castile, Aragon, Navarra, Aquitaine, Portugal, Byzantium - all Christian nations that *had* Muslims, really.

I was pretty much ready for that part -- I had my rebuttal all set ("save Byzantium, those were all areas that were previously ruled by Muslims")...and then you added this:

The story of medieval and early modern Christianity is one of increasing bigotry and exclusion. The Fourth Lateran Council mandated distinctive dress for Jews and Muslims because of the risk of 'good Christians' otherwise not recognising who they were dealing with. This is around 'tipping point', over the next few centuries, Muslims will be expelled from all and Jews from many Latin Christian realms. But before that time, coexistence was the norm.

I stand corrected.

thank you.

Keenir
November 14th, 2007, 05:28 PM
Effectively, yes it does mean all go to God. You're probably right in saying it might have hampered spreading early Christianity as "Do what we say or you'll be damned for all eternity!" Tends to get more attention than "We're all going to Heaven! YAY!" More's the pity.


History Channel had a program about the rejected Gospels...and one of them had Jesus telling one of the 12 (no, not Judas or Mary) that, in the end, everyone does get to end up in Heaven...but those who were wicked on Earth have to spend some time in Hell beforehand.

mojojojo
November 14th, 2007, 06:00 PM
when was The Fourth Lateran Council ?

Paul Spring
November 14th, 2007, 06:00 PM
Oh I'm not denying that the notion of an eternal Hell existed before Augustine but it was due to him that the Church accepted most of the ideas it had throughout its history. As for the early Churches, I'm not entirely sure of the ones which did accept Universalism but as far as I can remember, only the Church in Carthage actually preached eternal damnation at first. Interesting tit-bit, the Churches which accepted Universalism as a valid doctrine had the original Greek translations of the Gospels while those that didn't had the Latin Translations. I could provide links giving more details if you wish.

If Augustine was that crucial in establishing the idea of eternal damnation, why did the Eastern Orthodox churches, where Augustine was never an influence, also believe in eternal damnation?

Paul Spring
November 14th, 2007, 06:03 PM
when was The Fourth Lateran Council ?


1215 AD

See: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09018a.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Council_of_the_Lateran

http://www.piar.hu/councils/ecum12.htm

DAv
November 14th, 2007, 06:14 PM
If Augustine was that crucial in establishing the idea of eternal damnation, why did the Eastern Orthodox churches, where Augustine was never an influence, also believe in eternal damnation?

Well I might be overstating Augustine's influence somewhat :o. But did the schism between the Catholic and Orthodox Churches before or after Augustine?

but those who were wicked on Earth have to spend some time in Hell beforehand.

Did they go into any info on the translation of Hell? Only a lot of times that several versions of the Bible which use Hell actually instead have mistranslated from the word 'Sheol' which means the grave.

MerryPrankster
November 14th, 2007, 11:24 PM
Oh I'm not denying that the notion of an eternal Hell existed before Augustine but it was due to him that the Church accepted most of the ideas it had throughout its history. As for the early Churches, I'm not entirely sure of the ones which did accept Universalism but as far as I can remember, only the Church in Carthage actually preached eternal damnation at first. Interesting tit-bit, the Churches which accepted Universalism as a valid doctrine had the original Greek translations of the Gospels while those that didn't had the Latin Translations. I could provide links giving more details if you wish.

If you could, that would be nice.

I've read some Trinitarian Universalist material (tentmaker.org primarily), but although some of their arguments are surprisingly good, others are rather weak. I was, however, greatly interested by their Calvinism--they appear to be Calvinists, but believe in the unlimited atonement and thus end up as universalists.

EDIT: Never mind, saw some links you already posted.

Keenir
November 15th, 2007, 12:04 AM
Did they go into any info on the translation of Hell? Only a lot of times that several versions of the Bible which use Hell actually instead have mistranslated from the word 'Sheol' which means the grave.

the passage that they read/summarized from, told of Jesus waking up the OT prophets and others from earlier days (who, though they were in Hell, were asleep, not suffering), and being brought to Heaven.

then the program switched to a priest/scholar who said that the Gospel was rejected (among other reasons - like its date) because it removed any threat of punishment to wrongdoers.
(my reaction to that at the time: :eek::confused:)

DAv
November 15th, 2007, 12:32 AM
the passage that they read/summarized from, told of Jesus waking up the OT prophets and others from earlier days (who, though they were in Hell, were asleep, not suffering), and being brought to Heaven.

then the program switched to a priest/scholar who said that the Gospel was rejected (among other reasons - like its date) because it removed any threat of punishment to wrongdoers.
(my reaction to that at the time: :eek::confused:)

My thoughts as well... they really should have put some more thought into editing the Bible really.

SRT
November 15th, 2007, 03:00 AM
This is a very interesting thread. I don't have much to add, but I've been having a lot of fun reading it.