Haran

Ex... I didn't say it was "proof". I said it was tradition. Tradition is no worse than your opinion... In my opinion it is better. Besides, you said that you thought the church fathers attributed the name Matthew to the gospel out of "convenience", but I say it was by tradition that was handed down to them by people they trusted.

I, personally, think you are mixing up the many heretics of the 2nd and 3rd centuries who wrote much more fanciful accounts of Jesus' life and teachings, such as the Gospel of Peter.

There is no reason, in my opinion, to think that the early church fathers were lying. As a matter of fact, many of them were brutally honest, especially when it came to the question of canonicity.

The following statements were my theoretical opinion. I believe it is what likely happened given the evidence of the early church fathers which many seem to unreasonably ignore.

Check out the numerous references by the early church fathers testifying to the fact that Matthew wrote first:

<a href="http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/synopt/ext/index.htm" target="_blank">http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/synopt/ext/index.htm</a>

Origen says:

"...as learned by tradition about the four gospels, which alone are incontested in the church of God under heaven, that, first, written was Matthew, once publican but later apostle of Jesus Christ, who published it for the believers from Judaism, composed in Hebrew letters"

Papias says:

"Now Matthew compiled the reports in a Hebrew manner of speech, but each interpreted them as he could."

Jerome says of this Hebrew version of Matthew:

"Futher, the Hebrew itself is still kept today in the Caesarean library, which Pamphilus the martyr diligently assembled."

Eusebius, quoting Papias:

"And the presbyter would say this: Mark, who was indeed Peter's interpreter, accurately wrote as much as he remembered, yet not in order, about that which was either said or did by the Lord. For he neither heard the Lord nor followed him, but later, as I said, Peter, who as necessary would make his teachings but not exactly an arrangement of the Lord's reports, so that Mark did not fail by writing certain things as he recalled. For he had one purpose, not to omit what he heard or falsify them."

Ex... You just jump off the deep end sometimes. When I say "create" I am referring to the theological agenda which he certainly had and not to the idea that he whipped up a fictional account. Give me a break...

Why not?

Haran

[ March 30, 2002: Message edited by: Haran ]</p>

Sojourner553

What good is opinion if you don't subject it to critical rational analysis? I notice you gave a blind eye to all my comments; I take that to mean you had no rational response.

It was the "opinion" of the Muslim terrorists to smash airplanes into the WTC. The problem is they never subjected their "opinions" to rational external analysis, to test if they might not be true.

Virtually all MODERN historical scholars -- liberal and conservative-- agree that Mark was written first.

Eusebius' history has been found historically inaccurate on a number of occassions. He was politically motivated to justify the Orthodox (Catholic )claim for absolute authority.

Check it out!

You seem to want to just shut your eyes to this.

That is your prerogative: Hopefully your "opinion" won't include hijacking airplanes in the near future.


<img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" /> Sojourner

[ March 30, 2002: Message edited by: Sojourner553 ]</p>

Haran

Sojourner, frankly I don't find your judgement very "critical" or "rational". Perhaps this is why I "turn a blind eye" to most of your comments.

You have already made a ridiculous statement about Eusebius and seem to be continuing in this delusion. The website that I linked to goes directly to the sources and finds that your "quote" is a "chapter heading" from Eusebius' work! If that isn't enough, it points out that you are not very critical in accepting your biased sources (whom you rarely seem to want to quote) in the mis-spelling of Prae Paratio.

I recently discussed this with a well-known scholar in person. It seems to me that many scholars believe that the gospel of Mark was written first but that Matthew wrote first. I did not say that the gospel of Matthew was written first but that Matthew wrote first as the early church fathers tell it. Why, pray tell, do you ignore this evidence which is not from scholars but straight from the very people who knew the apostles and call yourself critical?!

These comments are unwarranted, offensive, and just plain moronic. For such a critical and rational person, you sure inject a lot of vicious rhetoric!

In all seriousness, if you want people to take you seriously, put some reputable references on your articles, make them a little more eye-pleasing, and stop acting like you and your website have all the answers.

Haran

P.S. - All that "know-it-all" headbanging will not help your critical thinking skills, by the way.

[ March 30, 2002: Message edited by: Haran ]</p>

ex-preacher

<strong>Ex... I didn't say it was "proof". I said it was tradition. Tradition is no worse than your opinion... In my opinion it is better.</strong>

I regard the tradition about the authorship of the gospels as about as reliable as the Islamic tradition about the authorship of the Qur’an.

The value of an opinion relative to a tradition depends quite a bit on the basis of the opinion and the source of the tradition. In this case, I would argue that the opinion of modern critical scholarship is far more valuable than the tradition of the early church fathers. The value of your opinion or mine would come in somewhere after that.


<strong>Besides, you said that you thought the church fathers attributed the name Matthew to the gospel out of "convenience", </strong>

That’s not at all what I said. I said that I was calling the author Matthew out of convenience. I will assume that your mistake is due to carelessness, not malice.

<strong>but I say it was by tradition that was handed down to them by people they trusted. </strong>

I will grant that they may have heard it from someone they trusted. The problem is that we don’t know how far removed the person writing the testimony was from the actual author. Urban and rural legends can develop and spread very rapidly.

<strong> I, personally, think you are mixing up the many heretics of the 2nd and 3rd centuries who wrote much more fanciful accounts of Jesus' life and teachings, such as the Gospel of Peter. </strong>

You, personally, are wrong about what I was thinking. I have studied the NT for most of my life and have earned bachelor’s, master’s and doctorate degrees. I taught the synoptic gospels on a university level for three years. I am aware, as you should be, that there was a strong motivation in both Judaism and Christianity of the early centuries of the first millennium to attach a prominent name to valued writings. Thus, even the writer of Jude attributed a 2nd cent BC book to the ancient character Enoch.

I do not regard the Gospel of Peter [nor that attributed to Thomas] as any more fanciful than the four canonical ones. I would hold that the likelihood that the Gospels of Peter or Thomas are correctly attributed is about as the same as Matthew or John being rightly attributed. And who labeled the non-canonical gospels as “heretical.” Let’s see, who could that have been. . . . hmmmm . . . maybe the early church fathers? You are trapped in a circular argument.

<strong> There is no reason, in my opinion, to think that the early church fathers were lying. As a matter of fact, many of them were brutally honest, especially when it came to the question of canonicity. </strong>

Do you think there is any reason for the leaders of the 2nd and 3rd generations after Mohammed to lie about the authorship of the Qur’an?

Please share with us some examples of the early church fathers being “brutally honest” on the question of canonicity. (If you mean they were honest about disallowing the books they saw as heretical – duh!)


<strong> Check out the numerous references by the early church fathers testifying to the fact that Matthew wrote first: </strong>

I am fully aware of the quotes you gave from the church fathers. There is no question that they wanted to attribute the four gospels to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Are you aware of the last 200 years of critical scholarship?

In recent years, a growing number of conservative scholars have come to agree that none of the four gospels represents an eyewitness account. Not once is the first person used by an author of those books in referring to the deeds of Jesus (as in “I saw Jesus perform a miracle” or “We heard these things from Jesus&#8221 . Not once does any of the four books name its author. All are anonymous.

Sojourner553

________________________________________________
from Haran:
I recently discussed this with a well-known scholar in person. It seems to me that many scholars believe that the gospel of Mark was written first but that Matthew wrote first. I did not say that the gospel of Matthew was written first but that Matthew wrote first as the early church fathers tell it. Why, pray tell, do you ignore this evidence which is not from scholars but straight from the very people who knew the apostles and call yourself critical?!
_______________________________________________

Why do I ignore the evidence of the "Tradition?"
Because modern analysis has shown that these were probably not "eyewitness accounts", but written decades later probably by people who did not directly know Jesus.

When you say:
"I did not say that the gospel of Matthew was written first but that Matthew wrote first as the early church fathers tell it."


Huh? If you are NOT saying that "Matthew wrote first" then you must have some doubts on the truth of the tradition. If you BELIEVED the tradition, you would say "Matthew wrote first".

Then you insist that we should just look at the tradition, and ignore all modern historical analysis.

Sounds like obfuscation to me!

How about some substance, if you can...
_______________________________________
From ex-preacher:

I am fully aware of the quotes you gave from the church fathers. There is no question that they wanted to attribute the four gospels to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Are you aware of the last 200 years of critical scholarship?

In recent years, a growing number of conservative scholars have come to agree that none of the four gospels represents an eyewitness account. Not once is the first person used by an author of those books in referring to the deeds of Jesus (as in “I saw Jesus perform a miracle” or “We heard these things from Jesus” . Not once does any of the four books name its author. All are anonymous.
___________________________________________

Right on! But I don't think analysis is in Haran's lexicon.

Sojourner

[ March 30, 2002: Message edited by: Sojourner553 ]</p>

Haran

And now the atheists jump on the "majority of scholars" bandwagon. I love it...

If you had read some of the works you write about, you'd know that many of the early church fathers report that Matthew wrote down the "sayings" of Jesus down. This is what I believe came before the gospels and was used by them. So, yes, I believe the Gospel of Mark could have been the first gospel written.

What is this anyway? Beat up on Haran day?

I post an innocent reply in response to a request by the initiator of this thread and get your unwarranted and sarcastic responses....

You're making a fool of yourself, Sojourner.

Haran

Sojourner553

____________________________________________
Haran:

If you had read some of the works you write about, you'd know that many of the early church fathers report that Matthew wrote down the "sayings" of Jesus down. This is what I believe came before the gospels and was used by them. So, yes, I believe the Gospel of Mark could have been the first gospel written.
______________________________________________

If you read some of my other posts you would see that I would never pick on you, per se, for being a believer. In fact I pick on fundamentalist atheists almost as much as I do fundamentalist Christians.

Why I "picked on Haran" was because you ignored the substance of the responses-- by everyone.

Let me help you out: Scholarship does show that Mark was written before Matthew. There is a lot of evidence that myths HAVE entered into the Bible -- including the virgin story and the tradition of Joseph being a descendant of King David.

More liberal Christians "acknowledge" that some mythical (more superstitious) elements did enter the bible stories. They don't believe LITERALLY in the Ark stories and so forth. But they believe they were written as important MORAL stories and it has meaning for their hopes for a Creator/savior and a future life.

I NEVER attack the beliefs of Christians in this latter group! I only am "hard" on people who ignore blatant facts and insist on fundamental principles that have been "proven" wrong. No one can "prove" that belief -- by itself- in Jesus is wrong, nor would I care to try...

But I will try to "prove" that there are myths in the bible and yes that does question the authority that fundamentalists claim to possess in pushing their moral agenda.

And it was only in that narrow "sense" that I brought up the Muslim terrorists who blew up the WTC. I would never question their belief in using Allah as a symbol representing their hope for eternal life. But I would castigate them for
having a closed mindset -- that refused to look at external evidence questioning whether everything they were told was 100% absolute truth.


Sojourner

[ March 30, 2002: Message edited by: Sojourner553 ]</p>

Haran

Again, I've also read many of the early church father's works. I have read them critically and do not come to the conclusion that they are lying, so yes, I feel that I can trust much of what I have read. I have not read many of the traditions "about the authorship of the Quran", but I doubt that the people who produced them were liars either.

I think modern scholarship is valuable, but I don't think that it is above being wrong. I tend to trust sources closer to the time of concern when they agree en masse. Also, if you have read like you say you have, you'll realize that there are trends in scholarship that ebb and flow. What is a popular scholarly notion today may not be tomorrow upon some new discovery or due to some excellent new scholar. The ancient authors had to say is fixed and cannot fluctuate over time like the opinions of scholars.


Pardon me, this was due to my "carelessness". Please don't read in anything from my unfortunate exchanges with Sojourner.

Time after time, one reads in the early church fathers about a person who knew and listened to the apostles. Occasionally, one reads about the autographs of a biblical work having been in possesion of a particular church. Many of the early church fathers were the scholars of their day. I doubt very much that many of them would have uncritically accepted whatever they were told. I believe that one can see the process of passing of the "good news" within the church fathers in good faith that what they were passing on was truth and came from the apostles.

Is this really necessary? I don't doubt your learning, but degrees don't impress me much. When a person knows things, it is obvious.

I am aware that this was done. However, I am also aware that many of the church fathers sought to keep this kind of thing from happening and attempted define what they had received through tradition.

What does Jude and Enoch have to do with anything?

I'll appeal to modern scholarship here, since you seem to prefer that. I'm sure you know of Bruce Metzger and his Canon of the New Testament:

p.173
"By way of summary, when one compares the preceding rather widely-used apocryphal gospels (along with the more widely divergent specimens that were found at Nag Hammadi...), one can appreciate the difference between the character of the canonical Gospels and the near banality of most of the gospels dating from the second and third centuries. Although some of these claimed apostolic authorship, whereas of the canonical four two were in fact not apostolically titled, yet it was these four, and these alone, which ultimately established themselves. The reason, apparently, is that these four came to be recognized as authentic-authentic both in the sense that the story they told was, in its essentials, adjudged sound by a remarkably unanimous consent, and also in the sense that their interpretation of its meaning was equally widely recognized as true to the apostles' faith and teaching. Even the Gospel of Peter and the Gospel of Thomas, both of which may preserve scraps of independent tradition, are obviously inferior theologically and historically to the four accounts that eventually came to be regarded as the only canonical Gospels."

Many of my opinions are in keeping with the big scholars, especially on this issue.

No. Whether they do or not, I do not know.

*Sigh* You're just going to have to trust me on this one. I don't feel like digging up more quotes. Ex, I think you've seen enough of my stuff to know I'm not just blowing smoke.

I'll say that many are honest in admitting when books they agree with are not accepted or read in some areas. Most of the diverse church fathers seemed to agree on which works to exclude, but they had a harder time with things such as Jude, since you mention it.

Yes. See my soapbox speech above...

There has been a major shift back toward the Majority Text of late. With the excellent William Farmer, the hypothesis of Matthew being the first Gospel was almost revived. You see, scholarly trends come and go.

Who are these conservative scholars? None that I know.

haran

Haran

I have responded to what substance there has been, Sojourner. If you have missed the responses, then you should re-read.

Wrong. Modern scholarship believes that Mark was written before Matthew. There is a lot of good evidence behind this view. However, there are also some problems. Read any honest book on the subject and you will discover this. Why do you think good scholars such as William Farmer or <a href="http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:GxAfEOq2LxEC:www.twonh.demon.co.uk/+matthew+logia&hl=en&ie=UTF8" target="_blank">Brian Wilson</a> the recently departed have challenged the status quo if they didn't have any evidence to stand on? Things are not so black and white.

Besides that, I've already stated several times that I'm not saying that Matthew's Gospel came before Mark's but that Matthew wrote first [i.e. wrote the sayings of Jesus - the so-called Logia).

You can make the assertion, but you cannot prove it. You believe it, but I do not.

So I should follow their lead? I, personally, lend a lot more credence to the OT than do a lot of scholars. However, I doubt that you can "prove" that these things did not happen. Time wears away lots of so-called evidence, so who knows what did and did not happen.

I applaud your efforts in NEVER attacking the beliefs of Christians (even if you are telling them that their Bible is full of myths).

Believe it or not, I would not be considered a "fundamentalist" by those who know me. However, I do like to challenge those who think that they can "prove" some Christian "principles" wrong by continously stating they "ignore blatant facts".

Good luck. You act as if the fundamentalists have some horrible conspiracy in this "moral agenda" of theirs. They want others to experience God's love and save them from everlasting punishment. What could be more noble?

I'm sorry, but your thinking here is extrememly narrow. You pick on religion without so much as examining your own beliefs.

You see, there is a scale of belief. It runs from no belief to full belief. You can argue that the terrorists had full belief, but I don't think so. I think that they were closer to no belief. Why? They violated many fundamental Islamic values...drinking, gambling, committing suicide, killing other Muslims, etc. I maintain that someone who is closer to full belief will do their utmost to avoid breaking any fundamental tenets. There are lots of people who go to church, but how many really believe? How many really read their holy book? How many really follow the tenets of their religion?

Finally, as for an atheist who feels that his/her life is miserable and not worth living under the rule of some oppressive country, there is no reason not to commit the same atrocious act. At least in your mind, there is no ultimate punishment, right? Let's say you are in love with your life too much to commit suicide... What's to stop you from filling a suitcase with explosives and remotely blowing up a plane full of people from a country that you feel is making your life miserable? God? No. Nothing. An atheists morals are adopted piecemeal, a little bit of this and a little bit of that. What ever fits your fancy.

In short, watch who/what you try to blame for something so severe when your own beliefs can provide no more solid of an answer.

Haran

Sojourner553

Per Haran:
Modern scholarship believes that Mark was written before Matthew. There is a lot of good evidence behind this view. However, there are also some problems. Read any honest book on the subject and you will discover this. Why do you think good scholars such as William Farmer or Brian Wilson the recently departed have challenged the status quo if they didn't have any evidence to stand on? Things are not so black and white.
______________________________________________

Goodness! Then why have you been holding back on the DETAILS of this. That would have made a great debate. I'm serious here -- you have been holding back!

________________________________________________
Per Haran:
I'm sorry, but your thinking here is extrememly narrow. You pick on religion without so much as examining your own beliefs.
________________________________________________

I was very religious in my childhood and teens. I realized in my mid twenties, after a vast amount of study, reflection, and experience that it was highly probable that it was all based on superstition.

I have had a large variety of friends during my lifetime-- from most religions around the world-- so I have a lot of experience exploring the issue of religion through different viewpoints.

I did have a tragic experience with a fundamentalist relative --- a relative who was convinced she could risk a child's live because it would be "God's will" if anything "bad" happened. She "insisted" she couldn't be personally to blame, as everything is "God's will".

I admit this has embittered me towards fundamentalism, but I also recognize a significant proportion of religious people are not this "hardened".

My reaction to you -- right or wrong -- was that you were repeating a mantra: "Eusebius said it, it must be right..." as he lived during that period --without looking at ANY of the details.

Well using this logic, witchcraft must have been true because the contemporaries then believed in it.
For example, the official manual used by Church Inquisitors for trying witches,"MALLEUS MALEFICARUM", claimed that:

"All witchcraft comes from carnal lust, which is in women insatiable."

John Wesley, believed the rationality from the Enlightenment weakened
faith in the Bible. For this reason he denounced the skepticism that had
developed in England and elsewhere regarding the existence of witchcraft
and ghosts. In 1769, he wrote in his JOURNAL:

"With my latest breath will I bear testimony against giving up
to the infidels one great proof of the invisible world: I mean that of
witchcraft and apparitions, confirmed by the testimony of all ages."

And in another passage:

"It is true, likewise, that the English in general, and indeed most of the
men of learning in Europe, have given up all accounts of witches and
apparitions as mere old wives' fables. I am sorry for it, and I willingly
take this opportunity of entering my solemn protest against this violent
compliment which so many that believe the Bible pay to those who do not
believe it. I owe them no such service. I take knowledge that these
are at the bottom of the outcry which has been raised, and with such
insolence spread through the land, in direct opposition, not only to
the Bible, but to the suffrage of the wisest and best of men in all
ages and nations. They well know (whether Christians know it or not)
that the giving up of witchcraft is in effect giving up the Bible."

* * *

I have to catch myself from reacting to this -- because yes this aspect reminded me of my fundamentalist relative. I was probably unconciously battling you in her place...

____________________________________________
You see, there is a scale of belief. It runs from no belief to full belief. You can argue that the terrorists had full belief, but I don't think so. I think that they were closer to no belief. Why? They violated many fundamental Islamic values...drinking, gambling, committing suicide, killing other Muslims, etc. I maintain that someone who is closer to full belief will do their utmost to avoid breaking any fundamental tenets. There are lots of people who go to church, but how many really believe? How many really read their holy book? How many really follow the tenets of their religion?
________________________________________________

Psychologists will tell you that everyone does an action for a payoff. People therefore kill themselves because they are: (1)very depressed (usually from sickness or psychosis) or (2) zealots. Most zealots are religious, but not all. Marxist atheists (who were/are athiest fundamentalists) have been zealots as well.

Still I am not a aware of an atheist zealot who killed a large number of innocent people who ALSO was not diagnosed previously with severe mental problems. Religion can make mentally ill people worse. Case in point: Andrea Yates who killed her children to "save" them for heaven and from the devil. But agreed: she was mentally ill to begin with PLUS had gotten involved with some fundamentalist wacko religion -- not mainstream religion.

There is a large percentage of fundamentalists/ zealots in Islam. Even the world Islam means "submit" one's entire will for Allah.

When there was a plane crash of Muslim pilgrams destined for Mecca, the Saudi government refused to reimburse the families (a pilgrim on board turned on a personal stove which ignited the explosion.) The Saudi airlines refused to reimburse the families,insisting that Allah determines the EXACT time every person dies. If the accident had not happened, each person on the plane would have met their death in their own environment at precisely the same time. This is also why Muslims forbid insurance -- it is "evil" to try and mitigate or hedge themselves against the will of Allah.

The parallels for the Muslim WTC terrorists can be found with the Palestinians who commit suicide in Israel. Palestinian suicide terrorists are celebrated as heroes and it is widely believed in their Muslim community they will have a special high status in heaven. I watched as one father of a suicide terrorist wished he could follow in the path of his heroic son's glory. Special Arab charities take special care of the families of suicide terrorists.

They don't look outside their faith and are certain of their convictions...

_______________________________________________
Per Haran:
Finally, as for an atheist who feels that his/her life is miserable and not worth living under the rule of some oppressive country, there is no reason not to commit the same atrocious act. At least in your mind, there is no ultimate punishment, right? Let's say you are in love with your life too much to commit suicide... What's to stop you from filling a suitcase with explosives and remotely blowing up a plane full of people from a country that you feel is making your life miserable? God? No. Nothing. An atheists morals are adopted piecemeal, a little bit of this and a little bit of that. What ever fits your fancy.

In short, watch who/what you try to blame for something so severe when your own beliefs can provide no more solid of an answer.
______________________________________________

You do reflect a "fundie" attitude that atheists
must feel life is miserable without a god. I admit I was also instilled with this belief in my childhood, and only learned later it was false.

I remember in my mid twenties when after it all hit me -- all my other defenses for religion seemed unjustified -- ie based on superstition.

As this was sinking in, I asked myself: "do I want to open the door to this? I mean eternal life, even if it is a fantasy is kinda nice to believe." My answer was "No I want to know the truth; I have always honestly wanted to know what is true, even if I may not 'like' what I discover."


I next wondered if I would become a "bad" person? Afterall I had no punishment to fear, right? I checked myself--"No, I had absolutely no desire to change: I have always lived a moral life (even a "goodie twoshoes", rated G lifestle). "It was "I" who had wanted this; it was not from fear of punishment." (This was a major discovery about myself.)

Next, I felt a sense of deep relief. "Why, God was never causing all the terrible pain and suffering in the world -- it really is all random." I was surprised at my strong reaction of relief, as I never realized before this bothered me so much. I must have pushed this "unspeakable worry" into my unconscience.

Last, I wondered if I would perceive beauty in the world again. I remember looking up in the sky and seeing the spectacular light blue interspersed with the clouds. I felt my spiritual tingling kick in stronger than ever (a tingling that I had interpreted as proof of God's existance in my childhood.) "Nope, another religious myth" I realized.

I am far happier after "losing" my religion. I can compare myself before and after: I care far more for social issues such as the environment and the poor. Most of my family are still diehard Republicans. They worry about their tax cuts. I became a Democrat -- not because I like trade unions -- I don't. And Dems aren't perfect. But Dems are the only party that even halfway tries to minimize corporate greed, truly help the poor, worries about pollution -- in essence make the world a better place for ALL people and all generations.

One of the many areas I puzzled at when I was still religious was why so many social reformers (slavery, environment, helping the poor) in history were Jewish or atheists. (Most Jews don't believe in an eternal reward in heaven either.)

I can answer that question now. Because there is a deeper sympathy for the poor; a realization that this is the only life they will ever know. Religious people (I know from first hand experience) slough all responsibility for the poor to God -- "oh well, in the next life maybe it will be better for them..."

I have a very happy marriage and family. I do not have the "internal demons"--meaning fears many of my religious friends have. At work, I am the most calm and stable person around, trying to help most other people's neurosis and problems. I get out my frustrations doing religious boards...
(Smile).

I realize religion helps many people with their personal problems. I realize because of this, atheism is not for everyone; some couldn't even handle it because they could not intellectually find the philosophies that substitute for it.

I do publicise the superstitions in the Bible.
Why? My fundamentalist relative looks at the "certainty" of the Bible to justify her hardened positions (Gays "make her nervous", she laughs at her low milage SUV, her tax cut is her #1 political priority, etc.)

When I "box" with you, in a part of my mind I am probably boxing with my fundi relative.
I still have a lot of anger from that one episode -- it is my way of flushing the anger out of my system.

If you are not a conservative/fundie, this is arguably not fair of me. But I sure took you for one. Some of your responses still have not convinced me of otherwise:

Indeed,
Never assume what a person feels/experiences if you have never made an effort to walk in their shoes. I have seen both sides of the religious issue -- and am far happier on this side!


Sojourner

[ March 31, 2002: Message edited by: Sojourner553 ]</p>