Author |
Message |
 |
|
 |
Advert
|
Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
- No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
- Times and dates in your local timezone.
- Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
- Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
- Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now. |
|
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/02/20 22:57:38
Subject: Tea Party Jesus: The words of "Christians" in the mouth of Christ
|
 |
Decrepit Dakkanaut
Mesopotamia. The Kingdom Where we Secretly Reign.
|
@ Mannahnin:
I'm on my phone checking in between classes. My statements about the house of representatives weren't supposed to be "tit for tat" or to prohibit people from criticism. My point was that I shouldn't have to defend the statements of extremists in this discussion. There's a larger point to be made about how the districts of congressmen allow unsavory people to be elected, but I'm not banging that out with my thumbs.
|
Drink deeply and lustily from the foamy draught of evil.
W: 1.756 Quadrillion L: 0 D: 2
Haters gon' hate. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/02/20 23:12:33
Subject: Tea Party Jesus: The words of "Christians" in the mouth of Christ
|
 |
Fixture of Dakka
|
Monster Rain wrote: but I'm not banging that out with my thumbs. 
I find your lack of dedication sad.
|
"But i'm more than just a little curious, how you're planning to go about making your amends, to the dead?" -The Noose-APC
"Little angel go away
Come again some other day
The devil has my ear today
I'll never hear a word you say" Weak and Powerless - APC
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/02/21 01:16:08
Subject: Tea Party Jesus: The words of "Christians" in the mouth of Christ
|
 |
[DCM]
Tilter at Windmills
|
Monster Rain wrote:I'm on my phone checking in between classes. My statements about the house of representatives weren't supposed to be "tit for tat" or to prohibit people from criticism.
I didn't think you meant to; I just see that kind of point raised most often kind of reflexively.
Monster Rain wrote:My point was that I shouldn't have to defend the statements of extremists in this discussion.
That's reasonable. From my perspective Rick Santorum is a pretty scary extremist, but he's the co front-runner for the nomination at the moment. .
Monster Rain wrote: There's a larger point to be made about how the districts of congressmen allow unsavory people to be elected, but I'm not banging that out with my thumbs. 
That's a good point, though I think a bit of a divergence from the main issue of the thread. I know the way the topic was raised wasn't the friendliest way to appoach the subject, but I find the topic quite interesting.
|
Adepticon 2015: Team Tourney Best Imperial Team- Team Ironguts, Adepticon 2014: Team Tourney 6th/120, Best Imperial Team- Cold Steel Mercs 2, 40k Championship Qualifier ~25/226
More 2010-2014 GT/Major RTT Record (W/L/D) -- CSM: 78-20-9 // SW: 8-1-2 (Golden Ticket with SW), BA: 29-9-4 6th Ed GT & RTT Record (W/L/D) -- CSM: 36-12-2 // BA: 11-4-1 // SW: 1-1-1
DT:70S++++G(FAQ)M++B++I+Pw40k99#+D+++A+++/sWD105R+++T(T)DM+++++
A better way to score Sportsmanship in tournaments
The 40K Rulebook & Codex FAQs. You should have these bookmarked if you play this game.
The Dakka Dakka Forum Rules You agreed to abide by these when you signed up.
Maelstrom's Edge! |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/02/21 03:07:41
Subject: Tea Party Jesus: The words of "Christians" in the mouth of Christ
|
 |
5th God of Chaos! (Yea'rly!)
The Great State of Texas
|
Joey wrote:Implicit in the popularity of these figures is a terrible education system. I can't think of a single western country where those sorts of views are tolerated in public figures, let alone encouraged. For comparison, the Christian Party in the UK got a grant total of 0.1% in the 2010 general election. Though it does look like Obama is going to sweep back into a second term in office, so maybe these peoples' time is over. Yet our higher education system is better than yours. Plus we fight mountain lions...daily. Jealous?
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/02/21 03:07:51
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/02/21 04:17:43
Subject: Re:Tea Party Jesus: The words of "Christians" in the mouth of Christ
|
 |
The Dread Evil Lord Varlak
|
dogma wrote:I suppose I should have been more specific, they believe he is the messiah, but not in a sense that is consistent with the view of most Christians given the established understanding of Christianity. The vast majority of Christian theological traditions require that the messiah be the embodiment of God, and they have a solid argument.
I think you're probably overstating what are, to most Christians, obscure points on theology.
If you asked a Christian if Mormons count as Christians, and they said no, it'd be because of bigamy, or because Joseph Smith made up his own book, not because of differences in the trinity.
Many of them still do, but the differences are less significant.
Excatly. There is a whole range of options for treating another organisation, than just a simply is/isn't part of Christianity. Automatically Appended Next Post: dogma wrote:I suspect, however, that given the prevalence of Christians that believe Mormons are not Christian, that it will eventually become the de facto opinion both within and without LDS.
Given the hard sell being made by the LDS, as in they've hired marketing firms and everything, to engage with mainstream Christianity and highlight the similarities between Mormonism and other Christian faiths, I find that very unlikely. Automatically Appended Next Post: Frazzled wrote:Sometimes one can see why fatwas are issued.
Now I want a picture of Jesus saying 'now I see why fatwas are issued' because holy gak, fraz, you just don't fething get it.
You want to worry about people making fun of Christianity? Well then be Christian.
|
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2012/02/21 04:21:59
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/02/21 04:23:10
Subject: Re:Tea Party Jesus: The words of "Christians" in the mouth of Christ
|
 |
Dwarf High King with New Book of Grudges
United States
|
biccat wrote:
Then what counts as a "holy book." Are Syrian Christians not really Christians because they traditionally omitted Revalations? Do new translations count as different books? Are churches who use the King James Bible of a different religion than those who use the New International? What about some of the more bizarre translations, like the New Living Bible?
I generally consider any book that attempts to convey the meaning of the original text of the Bible to be the Bible, with variances in translation and canon marking differences in denomination.
The NLT is a weird one, but I don't know of any denomination, or church that uses it as anything other than a teaching aid, or tool for conversion. For example, Billy Graham famously used Living Letters in the course of his evangelism.
|
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/02/21 04:23:11
Subject: Tea Party Jesus: The words of "Christians" in the mouth of Christ
|
 |
The Dread Evil Lord Varlak
|
Mannahnin wrote:Whose responsibilty is it to chastise a politician who claims to be a Christian but makes hateful, intolerant, and/or bigoted statements? If Christian organization do not stand up and say "that guy doesn't represent us", does that represent an implicit approval?
I personally don't have a problem with Christianity and have met a number of Christians whom I like and admire. But I do think that the website cited here makes a disturbing point that there appears to be a conflict in how Christian beliefs are protrayed in our current politics and used to justify arguments which seem un-Christian, at least to me as an outsider (albeit one with an interest in politics and some background in religious studies).
Yeah, it seems to me a fairly simple point, of lots of people claiming to be Christian who then go about saying lots of things that are very un-Christian.
And then a thread in which lots of people really, really don't get that very simple thing.
Your first sentence is a little more tricky. Bigoted, offensive comments are frequently denounced by various church groups, but rarely receive major media attention. Same as denouncements of Islamic bigotry. I'd agree with you if there was genuine silence on the issue, but the issue is more one of perceived silence, due to the nature of the media.
|
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2012/02/21 04:32:03
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/02/21 04:31:04
Subject: Re:Tea Party Jesus: The words of "Christians" in the mouth of Christ
|
 |
Dwarf High King with New Book of Grudges
United States
|
sebster wrote:
I think you're probably overstating what are, to most Christians, obscure points on theology.
If you asked a Christian if Mormons count as Christians, and they said no, it'd be because of bigamy, or because Joseph Smith made up his own book, not because of differences in the trinity.
The fact that Joseph Smith claimed to have had a series of revelations from God, on which the Mormon faith is based (ie. Joseph Smith made up his own book.) is legitimate grounds to consider someone something other than Christian.
sebster wrote:
Given the hard sell being made by the LDS, as in they've hired marketing firms and everything, to engage with mainstream Christianity and highlight the similarities between Mormonism and other Christian faiths, I find that very unlikely.
But the majority of the campaign is centered on the idea that Mormons aren't weird, crazy, cultists (Which is a prevalent opinion in certain Christian circles.), not that they're Christian.
|
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/02/21 04:46:40
Subject: Re:Tea Party Jesus: The words of "Christians" in the mouth of Christ
|
 |
Decrepit Dakkanaut
Mesopotamia. The Kingdom Where we Secretly Reign.
|
Catching up on the thread after a long day of class. Bear with me.
Mannahnin wrote:As noted, folks like Bachman and Santorum have been elected to national office in the past, and there are people who make similar public statements who are presently in office. From my perspective, this seems to indicate that using religion as a tool of divisiveness and us-them politics seems to have at least some track record of success.
While the use of wedge-issues certainly isn't an exclusively Christian tactic, I have to agree that this is generally true. I don't know what to say about it other than people enjoy being divided into groups that dislike each other. I attribute most of the gullibility of the people who are swayed by this type of rhetoric, as far as the Christians are concerned, to ignorance of the religion that they claim to hold so dear. I don't understand how someone could really read what Jesus said and find any reason to believe that they're justified in hating another human being.
Matthew 5 wrote:43“You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ 44But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. 46If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? 47And if you greet only your brothers, what are you doing more than others?
It's not like he's being vague here. Or here.
Matthew 22 wrote:36 “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”
37 Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’[a] 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’[b] 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”
Mannahnin wrote:And this is one of the reasons I respect you as a person. You are able to reconcile your religious beliefs with tolerance toward your fellow man and with modern conceptions of human rights. Given what Jesus said about how to treat other people, and about not judging, and about caring for people even if you believe them to be sinners, your position seems to me the one most consistent with Christianity. But your position does not seem to be one held by prominent Christian politicians. At least not one that's publicly spoken (except maybe by Democrats, like Obama). And I think it really should be publicly spoken. Christians shouldn't be hearing only the condemnatory position, and seeing people who are intolerant of gay marriage as the only ones representing their religious views in the public sphere. I think it also does a disservice to Christianity and Christians that non-Christians like me only see these jerks up there representing their views as Christian ones. It gives the false impression that you're all like that.
I can't really say anything other than that I think they're missing the point.
Mannahnin wrote:Monster Rain wrote:I'm on my phone checking in between classes. My statements about the house of representatives weren't supposed to be "tit for tat" or to prohibit people from criticism.
I didn't think you meant to; I just see that kind of point raised most often kind of reflexively.
I know what you mean.
Mannahnin wrote:Monster Rain wrote:My point was that I shouldn't have to defend the statements of extremists in this discussion.
That's reasonable. From my perspective Rick Santorum is a pretty scary extremist, but he's the co front-runner for the nomination at the moment. .
I don't know how scary he is, but I do think he's a jerk. It genuinely makes me sad to think how many people he's alienated from Christianity with his rhetoric.
Mannahnin wrote:Monster Rain wrote: There's a larger point to be made about how the districts of congressmen allow unsavory people to be elected, but I'm not banging that out with my thumbs. 
That's a good point, though I think a bit of a divergence from the main issue of the thread. I know the way the topic was raised wasn't the friendliest way to appoach the subject, but I find the topic quite interesting.
That line of conversation is a bit off topic, I suppose.
sebster wrote:dogma wrote:I suppose I should have been more specific, they believe he is the messiah, but not in a sense that is consistent with the view of most Christians given the established understanding of Christianity. The vast majority of Christian theological traditions require that the messiah be the embodiment of God, and they have a solid argument.
I think you're probably overstating what are, to most Christians, obscure points on theology.
I think that you're understating what Christians know about theology, at least in my experience.
The concept of the trinity is a pretty big deal. I remember learning about it at a very early age as a Methodist, and I would imagine that Catholics have it mentioned to them in Catechism now and then.
|
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2012/02/21 05:11:31
Drink deeply and lustily from the foamy draught of evil.
W: 1.756 Quadrillion L: 0 D: 2
Haters gon' hate. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/02/21 06:19:21
Subject: Re:Tea Party Jesus: The words of "Christians" in the mouth of Christ
|
 |
The Dread Evil Lord Varlak
|
dogma wrote:The fact that Joseph Smith claimed to have had a series of revelations from God, on which the Mormon faith is based (ie. Joseph Smith made up his own book.) is legitimate grounds to consider someone something other than Christian.
Given the importance of revelation in many Christian faiths, I think you'd find you're excluding a lot more faiths than is sensible.
But the majority of the campaign is centered on the idea that Mormons aren't weird, crazy, cultists (Which is a prevalent opinion in certain Christian circles.), not that they're Christian.
I've seen the ads. They talk about doctrinal similarities. As in, they talk about the one doctrinal similarity that actually matters - they believe in Jesus just like other Christians do. Automatically Appended Next Post: Monster Rain wrote:I think that you're understating what Christians know about theology, at least in my experience.
The concept of the trinity is a pretty big deal. I remember learning about it at a very early age as a Methodist, and I would imagine that Catholics have it mentioned to them in Catechism now and then.
All I can do is go with what Christians I have known worry about - faith in Jesus and a commitment to good works. They talk about the other stuff, but it's all just intellectual. When that conversation happens it feels to me to have the same tone as a coversation about 3rd ed WHFB rules, a fun intellectual exercise but with absolutely no modern meaning.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/02/21 06:21:25
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/02/21 06:35:48
Subject: Re:Tea Party Jesus: The words of "Christians" in the mouth of Christ
|
 |
Dwarf High King with New Book of Grudges
United States
|
Monster Rain wrote:
Mannahnin wrote:As noted, folks like Bachman and Santorum have been elected to national office in the past, and there are people who make similar public statements who are presently in office. From my perspective, this seems to indicate that using religion as a tool of divisiveness and us-them politics seems to have at least some track record of success.
While the use of wedge-issues certainly isn't an exclusively Christian tactic, I have to agree that this is generally true. I don't know what to say about it other than people enjoy being divided into groups that dislike each other. I attribute most of the gullibility of the people who are swayed by this type of rhetoric, as far as the Christians are concerned, to ignorance of the religion that they claim to hold so dear. I don't understand how someone could really read what Jesus said and find any reason to believe that they're justified in hating another human being.
To be fair, wedge issues are noticeably more effective in Congressional elections, due to the restricted constituency; especially in the House where gerrymandering can have an effect. At the Presidential they are noticeably less important, at least in the general election; during the primaries the need to curry favor with the party faithful changes things.
As to ignorance of religion: My dad (a minister, for those that don't know) used to say that most people stop thinking about God when they stop going to Sunday school, so their understanding of faith never really progresses beyond that of your average 10 year old.
Sunday Christian, is the term, I believe.
Monster Rain wrote:
Mannahnin wrote:I think it also does a disservice to Christianity and Christians that non-Christians like me only see these jerks up there representing their views as Christian ones. It gives the false impression that you're all like that.
I can't really say anything other than that I think they're missing the point.
It all makes sense now. Christian fundamentalism isn't after religious purity, or political achievement. No, the truth is far more sinister. Christian fundamentalism exists so Richard Dawkins can sell books based on dime-store philosophy. Automatically Appended Next Post: sebster wrote:
Given the importance of revelation in many Christian faiths, I think you'd find you're excluding a lot more faiths than is sensible.
Revelation is important, but one of the central tenets of Christianity is that the Bible, either on its own or via Jesus' divinity, is the supreme (or only) revelation of God.
sebster wrote:
I've seen the ads. They talk about doctrinal similarities. As in, they talk about the one doctrinal similarity that actually matters - they believe in Jesus just like other Christians do.
I've seen them too, mostly on Youtube, but I haven't watched them all the way through in a while; I'll go look them up later.
sebster wrote:
All I can do is go with what Christians I have known worry about - faith in Jesus and a commitment to good works. They talk about the other stuff, but it's all just intellectual. When that conversation happens it feels to me to have the same tone as a coversation about 3rd ed WHFB rules, a fun intellectual exercise but with absolutely no modern meaning.
I think you'll find that most conversations on religious classification are little more than fun intellectual exercises.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/02/21 06:50:52
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/02/21 18:52:50
Subject: Re:Tea Party Jesus: The words of "Christians" in the mouth of Christ
|
 |
Pulsating Possessed Chaos Marine
|
dogma wrote:
Revelation is important, but one of the central tenets of Christianity is that the Bible, either on its own or via Jesus' divinity, is the supreme (or only) revelation of God.
Can you back this up? Can you demonstrate where the Christian community (all Christians everywhere) came together and decided on a universally acceptable form for the Bible? Or decided, as you state that the bible "is the supreme or only revelation of God"? Please include citation from an authoritative source--i.e. not wikipedia.
Christianity is not Islam. There is no seal of the prophets in Christianity which prohibits further revelation. Further, the Bible only has a 'canon' (sealed and immutable) status within the Roman Catholic Church-- what is and is not included within canon scripture varies within the protestant and orthodox traditions. Would you exclude Gnostic and Mystic Christians from this mix as well? Even within Catholicism this isn't set in stone either. Consider the works of Theresa of Avila or Saint John of the Cross. Canonized saints whose works, based on vision and revelation from God, have entered into doctrinal tradition.
|
DA:80S+++G+++M++B+I+Pw40k99/re#+D++A+++/fWD255R+++T(T)DM+
 I am Blue/Black Take The Magic Dual Colour Test - Beta today! <small>Created with Rum and Monkey's Personality Test Generator.</small>I'm both selfish and rational. I'm scheming, secretive and manipulative; I use knowledge as a tool for personal gain, and in turn obtaining more knowledge. At best, I am mysterious and stealthy; at worst, I am distrustful and opportunistic. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/02/21 19:32:03
Subject: Tea Party Jesus: The words of "Christians" in the mouth of Christ
|
 |
Consigned to the Grim Darkness
|
I think you'll find that most conversations on religious classification are little more than fun intellectual exercises.
Or not so fun denouncements of a group of people who you disagree with.
|
The people in the past who convinced themselves to do unspeakable things were no less human than you or I. They made their decisions; the only thing that prevents history from repeating itself is making different ones.
-- Adam Serwer
My blog |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/02/21 19:43:08
Subject: Re:Tea Party Jesus: The words of "Christians" in the mouth of Christ
|
 |
Dwarf High King with New Book of Grudges
United States
|
deathholydeath wrote:
Can you back this up? Can you demonstrate where the Christian community (all Christians everywhere) came together and decided on a universally acceptable form for the Bible? Or decided, as you state that the bible "is the supreme or only revelation of God"? Please include citation from an authoritative source--i.e. not wikipedia.
Ah, this game! I'm good at this game.
First, Wikipedia is, if well cited, no more or less authoritative than any other source. People that say otherwise are most likely trying to cling to the ivory tower.
Second, I never said that "all Christians everywhere" (Which is begging the question anyway.) came together an decided anything, though if you want an event, the Council of Nicaea is a good one to start with.
deathholydeath wrote:
Christianity is not Islam. There is no seal of the prophets in Christianity which prohibits further revelation. Further, the Bible only has a 'canon' (sealed and immutable) status within the Roman Catholic Church-- what is and is not included within canon scripture varies within the protestant and orthodox traditions. Would you exclude Gnostic and Mystic Christians from this mix as well?
I already addressed the issue of canon, I'd rather not reiterate. As for further revelation, its might not be excluded " de jure" but it is " de facto".
In other words:
|
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2012/02/21 19:45:22
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/02/21 19:48:56
Subject: Tea Party Jesus: The words of "Christians" in the mouth of Christ
|
 |
Decrepit Dakkanaut
Mesopotamia. The Kingdom Where we Secretly Reign.
|
Revelation 22:18-19 mentions that the Bible shouldn't be added to or taken away from.
|
Drink deeply and lustily from the foamy draught of evil.
W: 1.756 Quadrillion L: 0 D: 2
Haters gon' hate. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/02/21 21:38:51
Subject: Re:Tea Party Jesus: The words of "Christians" in the mouth of Christ
|
 |
Pulsating Possessed Chaos Marine
|
dogma wrote:deathholydeath wrote:
Can you back this up? Can you demonstrate where the Christian community (all Christians everywhere) came together and decided on a universally acceptable form for the Bible? Or decided, as you state that the bible "is the supreme or only revelation of God"? Please include citation from an authoritative source--i.e. not wikipedia.
Ah, this game! I'm good at this game.
First, Wikipedia is, if well cited, no more or less authoritative than any other source. People that say otherwise are most likely trying to cling to the ivory tower.
Or trying to maintain some level of academic integrity. Citing from wikipedia is an awful idea. Citing from the sources that wikipedia articles cite is slightly better since you've gone directly to the source and the source (presumably) has a known author.
dogma wrote: Second, I never said that "all Christians everywhere" (Which is begging the question anyway.) came together an decided anything, though if you want an event, the Council of Nicaea is a good one to start with.
All Christians at the Council of Nicaea did not agree-- take the gnostics for example or the arguments between St. John and St. Augustine. Also, the council was foundational in causing the split between Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodox.
And since you can't cite any relevant examples of universal consensus (because non exist) you can't create a working definition of Christianity so you cannot exclude Mormonism.
dogma wrote:I already addressed the issue of canon, I'd rather not reiterate. As for further revelation, its might not be excluded "de jure" but it is "de facto".
It's not. Pentecostal and Assemblies of God churches engage in prophecy on a regular basis. Have you ever been to a revival? Born witness to speaking in tongues?
Look at this guy's website: http://www.jimfeeney.org/ There are thousands like it. Can you maintain they aren't Christians?
And, I'm not mad. Just asking you to back up your arguments.
Monster Rain wrote: Revelation 22:18-19 mentions that the Bible shouldn't be added to or taken away from.
The "Bible" wasn't compiled when Revelation was written. The warning refers to the letter of Revelation itself.
|
DA:80S+++G+++M++B+I+Pw40k99/re#+D++A+++/fWD255R+++T(T)DM+
 I am Blue/Black Take The Magic Dual Colour Test - Beta today! <small>Created with Rum and Monkey's Personality Test Generator.</small>I'm both selfish and rational. I'm scheming, secretive and manipulative; I use knowledge as a tool for personal gain, and in turn obtaining more knowledge. At best, I am mysterious and stealthy; at worst, I am distrustful and opportunistic. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/02/21 22:11:45
Subject: Re:Tea Party Jesus: The words of "Christians" in the mouth of Christ
|
 |
Dwarf High King with New Book of Grudges
United States
|
deathholydeath wrote:
Or trying to maintain some level of academic integrity. Citing from wikipedia is an awful idea. Citing from the sources that wikipedia articles cite is slightly better since you've gone directly to the source and the source (presumably) has a known author.
Sure, in academic articles. This isn't an academic article, its a message board about Warhammer.
To put this in context, in case you don't know, I do this for a living. I know more about academic integrity than most people because I'm an academic, and even I think the ivory tower is a bunch of crap. The type of citation you're talking about is either an appeal to authority, or the admission to the absence of qualified knowledge, the latter of which should end the conversation by way of ignorance.
deathholydeath wrote:
All Christians at the Council of Nicaea did not agree-- take the gnostics for example or the arguments between St. John and St. Augustine. Also, the council was foundational in causing the split between Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodox.
And since you can't cite any relevant examples of universal consensus (because non exist) you can't create a working definition of Christianity so you cannot exclude Mormonism.
And more begging of the question. Here's a tip, you can't assume "all Christians" could not agree at a defining moment of Christianity without first defining what a Christian is.
Regardless, tell me, does your nonexistent working definition of Christianity include Hindus? I mean, if I can't create a working definition of Christianity, then surely neither can you, which means Christianity is undefined, which means it means anything and everything, and is therefore without meaning.
deathholydeath wrote:
It's not. Pentecostal and Assemblies of God churches engage in prophecy on a regular basis. Have you ever been to a revival? Born witness to speaking in tongues?
Yes to both.
Either way, prophecy and speaking in tongues are not tacit to revelation in Christian theology.
deathholydeath wrote:
And, I'm not mad. Just asking you to back up your arguments.
You could have just asked, instead of pretending to an objection from logic.
|
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/02/21 22:59:46
Subject: Re:Tea Party Jesus: The words of "Christians" in the mouth of Christ
|
 |
Pulsating Possessed Chaos Marine
|
dogma wrote:deathholydeath wrote:
Or trying to maintain some level of academic integrity. Citing from wikipedia is an awful idea. Citing from the sources that wikipedia articles cite is slightly better since you've gone directly to the source and the source (presumably) has a known author.
Sure, in academic articles. This isn't an academic article, its a message board about Warhammer.
To put this in context, in case you don't know, I do this for a living. I know more about academic integrity than most people because I'm an academic, and even I think the ivory tower is a bunch of crap. The type of citation you're talking about is either an appeal to authority, or the admission to the absence of qualified knowledge, the latter of which should end the conversation by way of ignorance.
That would be why I used the term "authoritative." This is an anonymous forum, not a debate between known scholars.
dogma wrote:deathholydeath wrote:
All Christians at the Council of Nicaea did not agree-- take the gnostics for example or the arguments between St. John and St. Augustine. Also, the council was foundational in causing the split between Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodox.
And since you can't cite any relevant examples of universal consensus (because non exist) you can't create a working definition of Christianity so you cannot exclude Mormonism.
And more begging of the question. Here's a tip, you can't assume "all Christians" could not agree at a defining moment of Christianity without first defining what a Christian is.
Regardless, tell me, does your nonexistent working definition of Christianity include Hindus? I mean, if I can't create a working definition of Christianity, then surely neither can you, which means Christianity is undefined, which means it means anything and everything, and is therefore without meaning.
deathholydeath wrote:
It's not. Pentecostal and Assemblies of God churches engage in prophecy on a regular basis. Have you ever been to a revival? Born witness to speaking in tongues?
Yes to both.
Either way, prophecy and speaking in tongues are not tacit to revelation in Christian theology.
deathholydeath wrote:
And, I'm not mad. Just asking you to back up your arguments.
You could have just asked, instead of pretending to an objection from logic.
It wasn't an objection from logic, not even an attempt. It was a pretty specific question-- can you cite evidence? But I will concede to rhetorical arguments on my side in this case. And yes, this is a board on the internetz for people who play with toy soldiers, but I still like to have a little evidence every now and then, especially given the volatile nature of the discussion.
See, I do this for a living as well, and yes, I have my grievances with the Academy, but the "tower" gives some legitimacy to our research. It's a complicated problem.
But to the point,
Essentially, I'm arguing from an extremely relative standpoint (which is annoying, I know). And yes, my point is that no hard and fast definition of Christianity exists. The term is essentially meaningless and by extension so is the argument that Mormons are not Christians. Any definition can be countered by another. Much like the term "religion" there is no set of criteria for what constitutes Christianity; one can only talk about groups and what they practice. Mormons claim to be Christians and, in my opinion, no-one can gainsay them because no absolute definition exists. I respect that we need a linguistic system for identifying groups, but you know as well as I do that these systems fail at a certain level. In any case, we're both asking the other to prove concepts that cannot be proven on any real level. So perhaps we should just drop it. Mormonism and the validity of revelation isn't actually the subject of this thread anyway.
|
DA:80S+++G+++M++B+I+Pw40k99/re#+D++A+++/fWD255R+++T(T)DM+
 I am Blue/Black Take The Magic Dual Colour Test - Beta today! <small>Created with Rum and Monkey's Personality Test Generator.</small>I'm both selfish and rational. I'm scheming, secretive and manipulative; I use knowledge as a tool for personal gain, and in turn obtaining more knowledge. At best, I am mysterious and stealthy; at worst, I am distrustful and opportunistic. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/02/21 23:39:52
Subject: Re:Tea Party Jesus: The words of "Christians" in the mouth of Christ
|
 |
Anointed Dark Priest of Chaos
|
More of the same from today's news:
February 21, 2012, 4:20 PM
Billy Graham’s Son Questions Obama’s Faith
By ERIK ECKHOLM
5:01 p.m. | Updated The Rev. Franklin Graham, son of the evangelist Billy Graham, said on Tuesday that he was not sure if President Obama was a true Christian and that he could not definitively say that the president was not a Muslim.
“He’s come out saying that he’s a Christian,” Mr. Graham said of Mr. Obama in an interview on the MSNBC’s “Morning Joe.” “The question is, what is a Christian?”
Asked if he would declare that Mr. Obama was not a Muslim, Mr. Graham replied, “I can’t say categorically, because Islam has gotten a free pass under Obama.”
Mr. Graham cited the rise of Islamic parties in the Middle East as part of the Arab Spring and what he called a weak American response to the growing persecution of Christian minorities in Africa and the Middle East.
“All I know,” Mr. Graham said, is that Mr. Obama “seems to be more concerned about” the Muslims of the world than “the Christians that are being murdered in the Muslim countries.”
“Barack Obama is an incredible man,” he said. “He could be speaking to these countries now, demanding that they protect the Christians.”
In fact, the Obama Administration has spoken out for the rights of religious minorities and has condemned the growing violence against the Coptic Christians in Egypt, for example, calling for punishment of those responsible. But it has not heeded the call by Mr. Graham and some other evangelicals to threaten an immediate end to American aid to Egypt or other countries where Christians have suffered.
Under Islamic law, Mr. Graham volunteered, “the Muslim world sees Barack Obama as a Muslim” because his father and previous generations were Muslim.
Mr. Graham, 59, is president of the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association and of Samaritan’s Purse, an international Christian relief organization.
“If he says he’s a Christian, I’m not going to say he’s not,” Mr. Graham said of the president. “For me, the definition of a Christian is whether we have given our life to Christ and are following him in faith and we have trusted him as our lord and savior.”
This is not the first time that Mr. Graham and other evangelicals have cast doubts on Mr. Obama’s Christian beliefs. Last weekend, Rick Santorum, the Republican presidential candidate who calls himself a conservative Catholic, said that the president was guided by “some phony ideal, some phony theology.”
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/02/22 03:00:36
Subject: Re:Tea Party Jesus: The words of "Christians" in the mouth of Christ
|
 |
The Dread Evil Lord Varlak
|
dogma wrote:As to ignorance of religion: My dad (a minister, for those that don't know) used to say that most people stop thinking about God when they stop going to Sunday school, so their understanding of faith never really progresses beyond that of your average 10 year old.
Sunday Christian, is the term, I believe.
And that's the thing, when most people are on or about that level of understanding of Christianity, then obscure differences in theology aren't enough to make one group not Christian.
I mean, I'd say most Christians don't care about the finer points of the trinity, and a significant number are only passingly aware of the concept.
Revelation is important, but one of the central tenets of Christianity is that the Bible, either on its own or via Jesus' divinity, is the supreme (or only) revelation of God.
Except that so much of Christianity is outside of the Bible. Find me the passage that says life begins at conception, and yet despite being outside of that book, and something that was heavily debated well into the 70s, it's now become a point of absolute conviction, and questioning it is about as sure a way as possible of getting ostracised.
I think you'll find that most conversations on religious classification are little more than fun intellectual exercises.
Sorry, I didn't mean that, probably didn't make myself too clear. I mean that the elements of the finer points of the faith are treated in a tone very different to what they feel as matters of substance, which would be faith in Jesus and the need to do good works. Automatically Appended Next Post: dogma wrote:Regardless, tell me, does your nonexistent working definition of Christianity include Hindus? I mean, if I can't create a working definition of Christianity, then surely neither can you, which means Christianity is undefined, which means it means anything and everything, and is therefore without meaning.
That's a mighty leap. Many things have meaning without being clearly defined.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/02/22 03:08:19
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/02/22 04:27:15
Subject: Tea Party Jesus: The words of "Christians" in the mouth of Christ
|
 |
Fixture of Dakka
|
Monster Rain wrote:Revelation 22:18-19 mentions that the Bible shouldn't be added to or taken away from.
Dogma is correct. The scripture you quote refers to the book of Revelations and the term is "book", not Bible. The Bible is a series of books from Genisis to Revalations that were put together later on.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/02/22 04:49:43
Subject: Re:Tea Party Jesus: The words of "Christians" in the mouth of Christ
|
 |
Consigned to the Grim Darkness
|
sebster wrote:Except that so much of Christianity is outside of the Bible. Find me the passage that says life begins at conception
And? THat just means it's a popular belief, not necessarily a Christian one. CT GAMER wrote:The Rev. Franklin Graham, son of the evangelist Billy Graham, said on Tuesday that he was not sure if President Obama was a true Christian and that he could not definitively say that the president was not a Muslim.
That's because he's an idiot.
|
The people in the past who convinced themselves to do unspeakable things were no less human than you or I. They made their decisions; the only thing that prevents history from repeating itself is making different ones.
-- Adam Serwer
My blog |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/02/22 05:05:49
Subject: Re:Tea Party Jesus: The words of "Christians" in the mouth of Christ
|
 |
The Dread Evil Lord Varlak
|
Melissia wrote:And? THat just means it's a popular belief, not necessarily a Christian one.
You miss the point. It has become an idea that is mandatory among a large number of Christian groups, and questioning it will get you thrown out very quickly, with many people doubting if you are actually Christian. But it doesn't exist in the bible at all.
As such, given that this is a measure by which Christian groups define themselves, but one entirely outside of the bible, means that saying that purely adherence to the bible and nothing else is a very simplistic means of determining who is and is not a Christian.
|
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/02/22 05:09:23
Subject: Re:Tea Party Jesus: The words of "Christians" in the mouth of Christ
|
 |
Consigned to the Grim Darkness
|
sebster wrote:You miss the point.
I didn't miss it. I disagreed that it was a good point...
|
The people in the past who convinced themselves to do unspeakable things were no less human than you or I. They made their decisions; the only thing that prevents history from repeating itself is making different ones.
-- Adam Serwer
My blog |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/02/22 05:39:45
Subject: Re:Tea Party Jesus: The words of "Christians" in the mouth of Christ
|
 |
The Dread Evil Lord Varlak
|
Melissia wrote:I didn't miss it. I disagreed that it was a good point...
So you don't agree that when deciding what a Christian is, some consideration should be granted to what some Christians will consider necessary to being a member?
|
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/02/22 05:58:51
Subject: Re:Tea Party Jesus: The words of "Christians" in the mouth of Christ
|
 |
Dwarf High King with New Book of Grudges
United States
|
deathholydeath wrote:
That would be why I used the term "authoritative." This is an anonymous forum, not a debate between known scholars.
I'm not big on considering any source to be authoritative. By my nature I don't trust individuals unless I'm forced to, and this extends to scholarly work.
deathholydeath wrote:
It wasn't an objection from logic, not even an attempt. It was a pretty specific question-- can you cite evidence? But I will concede to rhetorical arguments on my side in this case. And yes, this is a board on the internetz for people who play with toy soldiers, but I still like to have a little evidence every now and then, especially given the volatile nature of the discussion.
I've already provided at least three arguments to not classify Mormons as Christians. Mormons are non-Trinitarian, and the Nicene Creed is considered by many to define Christianity. Mormons have 3 additional holy books. Mormons have assorted doctrinal differences with respect to mainstream Christianity that extend beyond the variance seen between, say, Catholics and Protestants or even Protestants and Eastern Orthodoxy.
deathholydeath wrote:
See, I do this for a living as well, and yes, I have my grievances with the Academy, but the "tower" gives some legitimacy to our research. It's a complicated problem.
I consider that legitimacy to be illusory at best, but that's another thread.
deathholydeath wrote:
Essentially, I'm arguing from an extremely relative standpoint (which is annoying, I know). And yes, my point is that no hard and fast definition of Christianity exists. The term is essentially meaningless and by extension so is the argument that Mormons are not Christians. Any definition can be countered by another. Much like the term "religion" there is no set of criteria for what constitutes Christianity; one can only talk about groups and what they practice. Mormons claim to be Christians and, in my opinion, no-one can gainsay them because no absolute definition exists. I respect that we need a linguistic system for identifying groups, but you know as well as I do that these systems fail at a certain level. In any case, we're both asking the other to prove concepts that cannot be proven on any real level. So perhaps we should just drop it. Mormonism and the validity of revelation isn't actually the subject of this thread anyway.
Fair enough, neither of us is going to make any headway here, as I suspect we've both had this argument often enough to be fairly entrenched in our positions. Automatically Appended Next Post: sebster wrote:
And that's the thing, when most people are on or about that level of understanding of Christianity, then obscure differences in theology aren't enough to make one group not Christian.
I mean, I'd say most Christians don't care about the finer points of the trinity, and a significant number are only passingly aware of the concept.
I don't think the Trinity is that obscure, as its certainly something taught in Sunday school. But at this point its all just guess work in terms of proportionality, so I suspect we'll just have to disagree.
sebster wrote:
Except that so much of Christianity is outside of the Bible. Find me the passage that says life begins at conception, and yet despite being outside of that book, and something that was heavily debated well into the 70s, it's now become a point of absolute conviction, and questioning it is about as sure a way as possible of getting ostracised.
Sure, but that's not the result of revelation. Interpreting the Bible, or having a relationship with God is not revelation.
sebster wrote:
Sorry, I didn't mean that, probably didn't make myself too clear. I mean that the elements of the finer points of the faith are treated in a tone very different to what they feel as matters of substance, which would be faith in Jesus and the need to do good works.
In my experience "faith in Jesus" is less important than good works, at least for most people, which is what I was trying to get at. The people that seriously think about religion and theology are usually either quite religious, or academics. Most everyone else just sort of goes along for the ride, which is why the theological differences between Mormons and Christians are important.
For example, if my dad said during Bible study that Mormons were not Christian, everyone in attendance would probably believe him. Of course, being in a particularly liberal denomination, no one there would likely care in the first place.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/02/22 06:29:53
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/02/22 07:09:51
Subject: Re:Tea Party Jesus: The words of "Christians" in the mouth of Christ
|
 |
The Dread Evil Lord Varlak
|
dogma wrote:I don't think the Trinity is that obscure, as its certainly something taught in Sunday school. But at this point its all just guess work in terms of proportionality, so I suspect we'll just have to disagree. Not obscure as in unknown, I knew of the trinity before I was ten, and I've never been raised in any faith. Nah, obscure in the sense of it being marginal, largely irrelevant to actual practices. Sure, but that's not the result of revelation. Interpreting the Bible, or having a relationship with God is not revelation. But we're not talking only of revelation, but of everything that makes up being a Christian. The point about Catholics having a long tradition of concepts coming from outside the Bible is already made, and I was making the point that other groups, even those who consider themselves biblical literalists, find much of what they define themselves as outside of the bible. Ultimately, we have to consider that it isn't just about the bible. In my experience "faith in Jesus" is less important than good works, at least for most people, which is what I was trying to get at. The people that seriously think about religion and theology are usually either quite religious, or academics. Most everyone else just sort of goes along for the ride, which is why the theological differences between Mormons and Christians are important. That's the point, good works matters more than anything, and Mormonism instructs its members to good works as much as any other order. There differences in theology at the high levels, but that's not what matters. For example, if my dad said during Bible study that Mormons were not Christian, everyone in attendance would probably believe him. Of course, being in a particularly liberal denomination, no one there would likely care in the first place. Which is a fair argument, but I do not believe it is simply the whole of the argument. That Greek Cypriotes do not consider Turkish Cypriotes as Cypriotes, but they still are. And had you asked a Western Christian if a member of the Eastern Orthodox was a Christian 400 years ago, you would likely have been told he was not. The far more important question becomes 'what does the individual think of himself?', and so to change your example slightly, what if a Mormon preacher stood up in church and said 'we are not Christian'. None would agree with him.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/02/22 07:10:48
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/02/22 07:27:31
Subject: Re:Tea Party Jesus: The words of "Christians" in the mouth of Christ
|
 |
Dwarf High King with New Book of Grudges
United States
|
sebster wrote:
But we're not talking only of revelation, but of everything that makes up being a Christian. The point about Catholics having a long tradition of concepts coming from outside the Bible is already made, and I was making the point that other groups, even those who consider themselves biblical literalists, find much of what they define themselves as outside of the bible. Ultimately, we have to consider that it isn't just about the bible.
Of course its not, despite what some claim, but claiming that there has been a new, more authentic, revelation is a really big deal. I mean, I really can't state this enough, revelation is not something taking lightly in Christian theology. Catholic doctrine, for example, while extra-biblical, is not revelation. At least not to my knowledge, I'm more familiar with Protestantism.
sebster wrote:
That's the point, good works matters more than anything, and Mormonism instructs its members to good works as much as any other order.
There differences in theology at the high levels, but that's not what matters.
Right, but "good works" is a broad concept, with many varying interpretations across multiple religions. Good works matters in the sense of random Christian X determining if random person Y is a good person, not in the sense of determining if they're Christian. Otherwise we end up in a situation where all altruistic people are Christian, which simply doesn't make sense.
sebster wrote:
The far more important question becomes 'what does the individual think of himself?', and so to change your example slightly, what if a Mormon preacher stood up in church and said 'we are not Christian'. None would agree with him.
Actually, they might. Religious officials, across all faiths, have a startling amount of influence on the beliefs of their congregations. That said, Mormonism is fairly rigid, more so than Catholicism, so that type of proclamation is unlikely.
Anyway, what individuals think of themselves is important, but not more important than the collective appraisal of an idea. Its sort of like the argument surrounding rights. You can believe you have a particular right, but if the majority of other people don't agree, then you don't have that right.
|
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/02/22 09:31:43
Subject: Re:Tea Party Jesus: The words of "Christians" in the mouth of Christ
|
 |
The Dread Evil Lord Varlak
|
dogma wrote:Of course its not, despite what some claim, but claiming that there has been a new, more authentic, revelation is a really big deal. I mean, I really can't state this enough, revelation is not something taking lightly in Christian theology. Catholic doctrine, for example, while extra-biblical, is not revelation. At least not to my knowledge, I'm more familiar with Protestantism.
So where does that leave the Jehovah's Witnesses?
Right, but "good works" is a broad concept, with many varying interpretations across multiple religions. Good works matters in the sense of random Christian X determining if random person Y is a good person, not in the sense of determining if they're Christian. Otherwise we end up in a situation where all altruistic people are Christian, which simply doesn't make sense.
Sure, belief in Jesus is the other part. Which, of course, the Mormons have.
Anyway, what individuals think of themselves is important, but not more important than the collective appraisal of an idea. Its sort of like the argument surrounding rights. You can believe you have a particular right, but if the majority of other people don't agree, then you don't have that right.
This leaves us with a position where people consider themselves something, while others consider them not a part of that thing. And still without any kind of satisfactory definition to help us clarify the situation. At which point we're left with shrugging and being relieved that externally imposed definitions never really mean anything anyway.
|
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/02/22 10:52:09
Subject: Re:Tea Party Jesus: The words of "Christians" in the mouth of Christ
|
 |
Dwarf High King with New Book of Grudges
United States
|
sebster wrote:
So where does that leave the Jehovah's Witnesses?
In the middle, Three Worlds isn't a holy book.
sebster wrote:
Sure, belief in Jesus is the other part. Which, of course, the Mormons have.
Who, and more importantly what, is Jesus?
|
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh. |
|
 |
 |
|
|