CloseTheBlastDo Posted September 30, 2003 Share Posted September 30, 2003 Well, Rainer, It's a good thign you have replied. I feel like I can at least try and have a rational debate with you on this... Let me guess, Jesus Seminar? There are many 'serious' biblical scholars that would disagree. I don't know about the Old Testament, haven't done much reading there, but the New Testament when compared to other works of antiquity stands up extremely well. First off we have more than 20,000 New Testament manuscripts from differnt geological locations and times in which to test its integrity. The history of Thucydides has about eight manuscripts and we only have ones from about 1,300 years after he wrote it, however this time frame is enough for scholars to say that there is little arguement to its authenticity, so why doesn't that apply to the New Testament? OK - well, you make some good points. First of all, I'd be interested in knowing if all the books of the New Testament have as many alternate, uncontradicting sources as 20,000. It's mainly the 4 gospels I was refering to in my last post. This is not to dispute what your saying - just want to clarify were talking about the same thing here. ...the fact is I don't think the other books of the new testament are as 'dubious' historically as the 4 gospels are. I'll conceed that the Bible could have more historical backing relative to another randomly chosen historical document. But, you slightly miss the mark here - and I'll explain why... How many people do you know of who claim that every single word in the 'history of Thucydides' are unquestionably true? How many people do you know that base their whole life on it's words? How many people are willing to quite dilliberately turn their minds from modern evidence if the evidence seems to put in doubt the words in this history? THis is what makes the historical accuracy of the bible (and other holy books) much more important to 'double-check' than any old history. They are meant to be 'holy' - divine in origin. i.e. a directly analogy between the bible and any other 'normal' history is not giving the whole story. The history of Thucydides does not claim to be of divine origin. THe Bible does. This makes any historical 'anomolies' concerning the Bible all the more important... Also, about the apparent 'disagreement' amongst serious biblical scholors. I don't doubt some biblical scholors don't agree with the stuff I posted before. But some simply state it as fact - the evidence is clear. Who is correct? (They can't both be. Either there are historical discrepancees, or their aren't). And remember, the biblical scholors speaking FOR historical anomolies are - in the most part as far as I'm aware - believers. Their objective is not to destroy the credability of christianity! They are simply coming to the sensible conclusion from the evidence in front of them. Also, as an example of how supposed 'educated' people can let their beliefs get the better of them: There is a document the Mormon's refer to as the 'Pearl Of Great Price'. (To any Mormons reading this - I'm probably about to offend you. Oh well - I've offended enough christians already - amy as well keep the record up!) It is meant to be some lost writings of various Old Testament prophets - including Abraham. Anyway - I can't remember exactly how he came across this document, but the 'prophet' Joseph Smith apparently translated this document by the 'power of God'. No-one at that time could accurately read Egyptian characters - so no-one could accuratly verify the translation. Of course today, we are far more knowledgable about Egyptian - and the translation can be verified. Take the original 'Pearl of Great Price' to any repsectable professor on Egyptian hyroglyphics, and they will tell you it's nothing more a standard funeral scroll. (In some places crudely altered - but in it's original form, just a funeral scroll). There are certainly no lost writings of ancient prphets on there!! BUT - take the Pearl Of Great Price to a professor at - say - BYU - and your likely to get a VERY differnt interperation! (It's one of the only places in the world you'll get such an interpertation mind!) ...the moral of the story? Intelligent, sensible people can be swayed by their religious beliefs in often drastic ways. You may start arguing - 'well, I don't consider Mormon's Christians anyway - that story means nothing about the Bible.' But I'm afraid it does. This kind of thinking is not restricted to any one religious group I'm afraid... Here is your problem though, if Jesus's diciples had stolen the body from the tomb, which would be a feet in itself, they would know it was a lie. 11 out of the 12 diciples were martryrs, and the 12th died of old age. My question to you is who in their right mind would die for something they knew was a lie? If the women visiting the tomb got the wrong tomb, not only would they be the ones in error but the diciples who went back to check the tomb would also have made the mistake of going to the wrong tomb. Even if this was true, once Christianity started up again wouldn't you think that the Pharises would have produced the body? The same goes for the theory that his body was moved. He also appeared to over 500 of his followers after his ressurection, so somehow somebody fooled 500 people into thinking that he was Jesus. I DON'T think the disciples stole Jesus' body from the tomb. I DO think that MANY people saw Jesus after his 'supposed' death. However, I don't believe Jesus was actually dead when he was put into the tomb in the first place... OK - I can see the utter disgust on yuor face right now! I'm sure you've heard these kinds of theories before, and I'm sure you give them as much credence as I do that Jesus ACTUALLY walked on water! If your interested (and when I actually have access to a Bible) - I'll be happy to talk you through my reasoning... LOL! Yes, absolutely. You should never listen to a man unless he has been crucified by angry mobs. You shouldn't even consider what they say unless they are crucified-if there is an angry mob, now THATs something... lol... (I'm joking, for anyone who can't tell) It's refreshing to see a christian with a PROPER sense of humour Who here has heard of HERO? Its a novel, a comic book, and a rock opera that dipicts a story of a world that is still looking for a messiah in the year 2003. A baby is born in Bethlahem, Pennslyvania who is to be the savior of our world. Its purpose to get people talking about the Bible, and compare what is written with the portrayal done by HERO. Now here is my question, what happens if the Bible is somehow lost in the many years to come, and the only thing Christians have to share their faith is this novel? Now I doubt that will hapen but the question remains would it be any less Christianity because of it? I think you need to clarify what your trying to say here... Can you explain to someone else the 'Gospel' without having to go through the whole Bible? Sure you can. In fact, the Bible seems to me a very big book to get across a concept you could explain in maybe a chapter or so of a normal book. THe bible - from where I'm standing at least - is SUPPOST to give Christian belief some kind of grounding - some kind of validity (historically). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vegietto Posted September 30, 2003 Author Share Posted September 30, 2003 yes that is true but it physically impossible to me i mean it could have happened but their is no proof i need solid evidence that it happened to be fully satified, so until they prove it then i will be happy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vegietto Posted September 30, 2003 Author Share Posted September 30, 2003 yes that is true but it physically impossible to me i mean it could have happened but their is no proof i need solid evidence that it happened to be fully satified, so until they prove it then i will be happy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lukeskywalker1 Posted September 30, 2003 Share Posted September 30, 2003 I'd like to turn this discussion in a differn't direction. There are many people who say that the Bible is the Word of God and inerrant, and they are usually refering to some English translation of the Bible. Your first problem is that the what you are refering to is a translation, not the original text. Words have much deeper meaning in greek, and the word order puts empasis on differnt words-things that can't be translated into English perfectly. So the question becomes, what language is the Bible inerrant in? You could say that it is the language that the book was written in (we are talking about books of the Bible now not the Bible as a whole). The problem here is that we don't have the original manuscripts-we have very early ones by historical standards but not the originals. What about the dead sea scrolls? In them we have versions of Old Testament verses that are slightly differnt than the versions that we have today. There are three versions of the book of Jeremiah, and I don't mean three differnt languages, or three differnt ways that things are said, I mean one of them as a bunch of extra information in it. So which one is the Word of God? I think that rather, the Bible is infallible, which holds a slightly differnt meaning than inerrant. To say that the Bible is infallible is to say that it can't lead you wrong. The message is still there, and it accurately records many historical events, but it may not be in the same way that it was originally written. Im aware of that, but its not that different (like you said) to really make any difference... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vegietto Posted September 30, 2003 Author Share Posted September 30, 2003 yes that is true but it physically impossible to me i mean it could have happened but their is no proof i need solid evidence that it happened to be fully satified, so until they prove it then i will be happy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vestril Posted September 30, 2003 Share Posted September 30, 2003 I don't have enough time to properly post...however my intent was this: Christianity has a reasonably good set of beliefs, however the trouble with it, and with most religions isn't the ideas it promotes, but rather the ideas it restricts. I really wish Christians as a whole could adapt and evolve as science does. The classic example is mans evolution from apes--which appears to refute christianity's religious origin!! This is not entirely true, however. Through study of something called mitochondrial DNA it is now considered likely that all human beings share a common, fairly localized origin (aka Adam and Eve theory). From a christians perspective: science is a way of interpreting the Bible. An example of an adaptation we need to make is the one about contraceptives. Specifically Catholics and the pope are against the use of contraceptives because it is their belief that God intends sex only for creating children. For this reason, any sort of sexual activity besides brief intercourse and ejaculation is essentially a sin (which is ironic, when you think about what it causes). A familiar chain of events would be 'young people engage in intercourse for fun, but don't use contraceptives because they are taught it is wrong, or not educated about them because their parents believe they are wrong, girl gets pregnant, justifiably becomes afraid and a) makes her life much harder by having a child or b) has an abortion, protects herr life, but has to pay a fairly terrible price.' ALL of that stems on a flawed premise: God doesn't want you to enjoy sex, it's just there for making babies. In fact, human beings appear to have specifically evolved (or been created, if you prefer) to not have babies. 1. Women do not show when they ovulate. In most animals, when the female is able to concieve, they either know and 'tell' the males, or they have a physiological change which tells the males that it's time to mate. In human beings, most women can't even tell when they're ovulating, and it wasn't until very recently (1920's...) that science could figure it out. Women are engineered so that we can't figure out when we should be having sex with them. God doesn't want us to know. 2. Human females are very bizzare in that they go through menopause! Most animals gradually die off as they become infertile, but human females do it all at once, and are very clearly intended to last after that. That is more of a sign that God doesn't want us making babies for oour entire lives, but you get the idea. 3. The interesting statistic to me is this: a newlywed couple, having intercourse as often as they possibly can, has only a 28% chance of concieving. In an animal like, say, the cow? That probability is 75% Science has, in essence, shown us the actual will of God, and it seems clear to me that the idea that sex is just for making babies is some sort of misinterpretation--possibly due to translations or possibly due to human fallibility. Just because the book says it was written perfectly, doesn't make it true For reference, most of the above ideas have been taken from a book called 'The Third Chimpanzee' written by a clever fellow named Jared Diamond. It's about humans and how we stem from animals, and doesn't bring religion into the subject mostly, though he does make the contraception point. Time to go to school--there was a lot more I wanted to write though lol... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rainer511 Posted October 1, 2003 Share Posted October 1, 2003 First of all, I'd be interested in knowing if all the books of the New Testament have as many alternate, uncontradicting sources as 20,000. It's mainly the 4 gospels I was refering to in my last post. This is not to dispute what your saying - just want to clarify were talking about the same thing here. Yeah, the number for the New Testament as a whole is 20,000, the Gospels have 5,000. You made some good points, but I wasn't trying to prove that the Bible should be considered 'unquestionably true', or that people should base their lives on it because if this fact. Your original comment was that the gospels were significantly altered in the decades between their writings and the authors' deaths. I was simply trying to prove that the New Testament is authentic, that what we have today is what the original authors wrote. The history of Thucydides is considered authentic because the manuscripts have are dated only 1000 years after their original writting-so decades would be considered negligable by this standard. And remember, the biblical scholors speaking FOR historical anomolies are - in the most part as far as I'm aware - believers. Out of curiosity could you tell me one of these historical anomolies? I'm open to the idea that the Bible can contain errors, but I've yet to hear anything that can't be explained. You may start arguing - 'well, I don't consider Mormon's Christians anyway - that story means nothing about the Bible.' You'd be correct in saying that I don't consider Mormons Christians, but the story is an analogy on how people can let their beliefs get the best of them. Your delima now is that you start to damn the source based on the beliefs of the source. I could just say, "You shouldn't consider evolution because the ideas are supported mostly by people who aren't Christians." Now that kind of thinking is absurb, but it happens to all people, religous and nonreligous. However, I don't believe Jesus was actually dead when he was put into the tomb in the first place... OK - I can see the utter disgust on yuor face right now! I'm sure you've heard these kinds of theories before, and I'm sure you give them as much credence as I do that Jesus ACTUALLY walked on water! If your interested (and when I actually have access to a Bible) - I'll be happy to talk you through my reasoning... I'm not disgusted, amused maybe, but definately not disgusted. This is a quote of David Friedrich Strauss. It should be noted that he does NOT believe in the ressurection, but has this to say about the idea that had merely fainted. "It is impossible that a being who had stolen half-dead out of the sepulchre, who crept about weak and ill, wanting medical treatment, who required bandaging, strenghtening and indulgence, and who still at last ielded to his sufferings, could have given the disciples the impresssion that he was a Conqueror over death and the grave, Prince of Life, an impression which lay at the bottom of their future ministry. Such a resuscitation could only have weakened the impression which he had made upon them in life and in death, at the most could only have given it an elegiac voice, but could by no possibility have changed their sorrow into enthusiasm, have elevated their reverence into worship" Also a question I raise is that if he was not stolen out of the tomb, then how did he get out? How would a half dead man push a two ton boulder from the entrance? A stone that was rolled by means of levers to the entrance. Even if he got past the stone, what about the guards? Did this half dead man somehow overcome the guards? Offenses by which a guard could be put to death included sleeping on duty and leaving their post unattended, something pretty awesome must have happened to make the guards flee from their post. I would be interested to see your reasoning on this. I think you need to clarify what your trying to say here... Yeah those last two paragraphs were more focused at believers. There are many people who think that if there was one thing in the Bible that happened to be proved wrong, then somehow the entirity of Christianity becomes invalid. I was trying to move the focus away from the Bible itself but towards the message it portrays. I guess a discussion like that is out of place here. ALL of that stems on a flawed premise: God doesn't want you to enjoy sex, it's just there for making babies. In fact, human beings appear to have specifically evolved (or been created, if you prefer) to not have babies. PLEASE tell me where it says God doesn't want you to enjoy sex in the Bible. An example of an adaptation we need to make is the one about contraceptives. Specifically Catholics and the pope are against the use of contraceptives because it is their belief that God intends sex only for creating children. Ugh... sex only for making children? *shudders* umm yeah... I've never met anyone who held this belief. To my knowledge the only thing that Christianity confines sex to is within marriage. I'm looking to have a lot of fun in my sexual life... as soon as I'm married that is . Just because the book says it was written perfectly, doesn't make it true Please show me where the Bible claims that it, the book, in its entirity, in the past and throughout the future, has and always will be inerrant. Because I would love to see it. As far as contraceptives go, my only problem with them is that they are given to children as a means to make sex "safe", but this is getting a bit off topic I think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CloseTheBlastDo Posted October 1, 2003 Share Posted October 1, 2003 You made some good points, but I wasn't trying to prove that the Bible should be considered 'unquestionably true', or that people should base their lives on it because if this fact. Well - let me clarify. I wasn't implying that you were trying to prove the bible is 'unquestionably' true - or anything of the sort. I'm refering to the fact that many christians see it that way. (We've seen plenty of that in these forums...) Not only is it unquestionably true, it gives you the right to seriously question contridictory evidence from any other source - no matter how conclusive. I'm not accusing you PERSONALLY of any of these things. But it happens. The Bible is considered like some kind of 'super' or 'uber' evidence. And in this light, any doubt to the historical accuracy of these 'divine' words are very important.... Any evidence has the right to be questioned. I have no problem with anybody questioning evidence I hold to be accurate - as long as it is done rationally. And again to make it clear - this isn't a critism aimed at your good self... Your original comment was that the gospels were significantly altered in the decades between their writings and the authors' deaths... Well - I don't personally know one way or the other. I'm not a biblical scholor! I only said that this is pretty much an accepted fact amongst many biblical scholors. Be aware I'm not talking about what might be considered 'sweeping' changes - I'm talking about the odd word or phrase - not whole re-writes. Understand, whether the gospels were altered in any ways after the orignal authoring is not central to my belief or disbelief in christianity. Neither is whether Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were actually the authors... ...there is enough contridiction in how the gospels portray events right through to Christian teachings themselves to convince me, personally, it is not divine. I was simply stating that it is most certainly possible the gospels were altered after they were written. This was - again - a comment directed to those who see the Bible as the be all and end all of truth - without question. As far as the actual evidence of gospel alteration - of course, you can do a quick search on Google and find all kinds of crap (usually with all kinds of hideous background colours!!). So I won't insult your intelligent by linking you to one of those. I will endevour to gather any supporting evidence first hand and then get back to you... I was simply trying to prove that the New Testament is authentic, that what we have today is what the original authors wrote. Yes- OK. But to be fair, in the same sense that I have not given you the direct 'evidence' of the ambiguity of the gospel 'alterations', you have only mentioned in passing 20,000 new testament manuscripts which apparently show they are genuine. How so? How early do these 'copies' originate from? As far as I'm aware, the 'alteration' theroies point towards changes being made sometime up to around 300 A.D. or so. (I could very well be off on this though -I would need to double check). Can these manuscripts be shown to have been made as early as this- ideally before? Only then would you show that the 'original' gospels could not have been altered before this point. I thing we both need to back up our claims here. As it turns out - especially myself! So while I will endevour to find the 'evidence' which supports my claim, you need to provide more details of your own... The history of Thucydides is considered authentic because the manuscripts have are dated only 1000 years after their original writting-so decades would be considered negligable by this standard. Now - this is a different matter. I understand that the literal age of a document is not nessesarily THE major issue in the process of assessing it's historical value. Possibly of more importace - to give one example - would be if whether the particular evidence is backup up by other evidences from the same time period. etc. etc. Out of curiosity could you tell me one of these historical anomolies? I'm open to the idea that the Bible can contain errors, but I've yet to hear anything that can't be explained. I know the opinions given, and I know that the opinions were given by 'biblical scholors', but they did not go through the evidence which brings them to this conclusion. Again, as I have said - I will have to take it upon myself to look into this further and find out exactly what evidence implies this... Your delima now is that your damning the source based on the beliefs of the source. I could just say, "You shouldn't consider evolution because the ideas are supported mostly by people who aren't Christians." Now that kind of thinking is absurb, but it happens to all people, religous and nonreligous. I accept that. The point I was making should be obvious - and I didn't have to go on like that. I apologise. ...concerning Jesus not dead in tomb... I'm not disgusted, amused maybe, but definately not disgusted. Well -it's good that we can find amusement in each other's outlooks! I've been having a good old laugh at the concept of sending good people to hell just because they were bought up in the wrong religion for years now... This is a quote of David Friedrich Strauss... I have several issues with the statement you quoted. First of all, it is known that Jesus' 'body' was visited repeatedly during the 3 days till his 'ressurection'. Not only this, but Nicodemous (according to the gospels) took 'healing' herbs - as opposed to 'enbalming'... So to isinuate he could not have possibly been attended to in any way is fairly nieve to say the least. The attendence of visitors to the tomb also make clear that Jesus himself would not nessesarily have had to remove the stone solely by himself to have exited the tomb. The only unknown then left is how he would have managed to leave the tomb past the guards. And yes - sure - I couldn't even pretend to give you THE actual answer to that question. I could give you SEVERAL possibilities. I could also point out to you much more unfeasible escapes - by people who had NO help in much more secure circumstances (not just two guards) and where people actually knew the potential 'escapee' was indeed alive!! Ressurection vs. an injured man (even a very injured man) getting past two guards (who believe he is dead) - with help... I know which one I see as more likely. As far as impressing people that he had conqured death when in an obviously injured state - the fact he was alive at all would have been enough. While it was unheard of to survive crucifixion, it did happen on at least one verifiable occasion. But to the average man, it would have been impossible for Jesus to have come down off the cross alive. So if he then was found alive after the fact - having already been acknowledged at the very least a 'holy man', that's all the evidence of divinity you would rightly need. This is why I actually give Jesus' followers credit for being genuine believers. It would be perfectly reasonable -given their viewpoint - to see that as nothing less than a miracle. In fact if Jesus himself had had any doubts up until that point about his divinity - I'm sure they were displelled when he got up and walked when he was suppost to be - by rights - dead!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rainer511 Posted October 1, 2003 Share Posted October 1, 2003 How so? How early do these 'copies' originate from? As far as I'm aware, the 'alteration' theroies point towards changes being made sometime up to around 300 A.D. or so. (I could very well be off on this though -I would need to double check). [i]From the New Evidence that Demands a Verdict[/i] Extant Greek Manuscripts Uncials 307 Minuscules 2,860 Lectionaries 2,410 Papyri 109 SUBTOTAL 5,686 Manuscripts in Other Languages Latin Vulgate 10,000+ Ethiopic 2,000- Slavic 4,101 Armenian 2,587 Syriac Pashetta 350+ Bohairic 100 Arabic 75 Old Latin 50 Anglo Saxon 7 Gothic 6 Sogdian 3 Old Syriac 2 Persian 2 Frankish 1 SUBTOTAL 19,284 TOTAL ALL MSS 24,870 I was wrong in my numbers and the 5000 number was for greek manuscripts, not for gospel manuscripts. I must have misread from another book- sorry about that. Also the numbers of manuscripts may vary depending on the source because depending on the size of some fragments it may or may not be counted. The New Testament was written somewhere between 50-100 A.D. The earliest fragments that we have are from 114 A.D. We have books from 200 A.D., by 250 A.D. we have most of the New Testament, and by 325 A.D. we have the complete new testament. That is 225 years max after its original writings. First of all, it is known that Jesus' 'body' was visited repeatedly during the 3 days till his 'ressurection'. Not only this, but Nicodemous (according to the gospels) took 'healing' herbs - as opposed to 'enbalming'... What makes you come to the conclusion that his body was visited? And if you go on to read this same verse, it says "This was in accordance with Jewish burial customs." He brought the aloes and myrrh not to try and nurse Jesus back to health, but just to bury him. And your explaination doesn't support the rest of the ressurection story. When Mary Magdalen saw the empty tomb and ran to tell about it, no one believed her except Peter who didn't really believe himself until he saw the empty tomb. If they had been nursing Jesus back to health for the past three days then why would Jesus's absence from the tomb be such a surprise to the diciples? Well -it's good that we can find amusement in each other's outlooks! I've been having a good old laugh at the concept of sending good people to hell just because they were bought up in the wrong religion for years now... I like the way that Josh McDowell puts it. From More Than a Carpenter Here is a probelm that developed as a result of humanity entering into sin. God in eternity past decided to create man and woman. Basically I believe that the Bible indicates he created man and woman in order to share his love and glory with them. But when Adam and Eve rebelled and went their own individual ways, sin entered the human race. At tat point individuals became sinful or separated from God. This is the "predicament" that God found himself in. He created men and women to share his glory with them, yet they spurned his counsel and command and chose to sin. And so he approached them with his love to save them. But because he is not only a loving God, but a holy, just righteous God, his very nature would destroy any sinful individual. The Bible says, "For the wages of sin is death." So, you might say, God had a problem. Within the Godhead-God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit-a decision was made. Jesus, God the Son, would take upon himself human flesh. He would become the God-man. This is described in John 1 where it says taht the Word became flesh and tabernacled or dwelt among us. And also in Philippians 2 where it says that Christ Jesus emptied himself and took on the form of a man. Jesus was the God-man. He was just as much man as if he had never been God and Just as much God as if he had never been man. By his own choice he lived a sinless life, wholly obeying the Father. The biblical declaration that "the wages of sin is death" did not apply to him. Because he was only finite man but infinite God, he had the infinite capacity to take upon himself the sins of the world. When he went to the cross almost 2,000 years ago, a holy, just, righteous God poured out his wrath upon his Son. And when Jesus said, "It is finished," the just, righteous nature of God was satisfied. You could say that at that point God was "set free" to deal with humanity in love without having to destroy a sinful individual, because through Jesus' death on the cross, God's righteous nature was satisfied." In fact if Jesus himself had had any doubts up until that point about his divinity - I'm sure they were displelled when he got up and walked when he was suppost to be - by rights - dead!! Well, who do you think Jesus thought he was? By the way, Jesus himself made claims that he would rise again on the third day, which unless you were sure it was going to happen is a stupid claim to make. I would like to hear your run on the following things. Jesus' Beliefs about himself Jesus' Miracles Jesus' Fulfillment of Old Testament Prophecies Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vestril Posted October 1, 2003 Share Posted October 1, 2003 I suppose I made a mistake in saying that God is against us enjoiying sex, but the argument is rather that sex purely for fun is forbidden, it has a purpose and should not be used in a manner diverging from that purpose. My apologies for my sloppy phrasing, but as you, an apparent linguist, must know--phrasing in english can be very difficult. As to the argument that it doesn't appear in the Bible--the Pope, the most visible Christian authority (Catholics AND MORMONS are Christians--they believe in Christ as a saivior which makes them Christians whether you agree with their beliefs or not), has stated that Catholic opposition to homosexuality is based solely on the premise that it involves sex without the result of children. This is also the basis for the Catholic opposition to masturbation--otherwise why would religion care at all if people enjoyed themselves in that fashion? I can only assume that the Pope derived his arguments from the Bible, and that he is a superior religious authority when it comes to Christianity and Catholisim specifically. Also, unless I've been completely mislead, the Bible states that it was written through man, by God. God is capable only of perfection, therefore the Bible states, perhaps indirectly, that it is, as you phrase it, inerrant. Since God is all knowing, I am forced to assume that it would remain so though Religious organization sanctioned trasnlations. Again, the Nuns who taught me religion may have mislead me on this account, but I'm apt to trust them over you (sorry ). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kain Posted October 1, 2003 Share Posted October 1, 2003 Christianity seems like the egotistical jock at a school. Everything they say is right and if someone tells them no, they protest(the whole courthouse issue). And they're kinda like 'If you're not one of us you're going to Hell'. I've been condemned by many, but I can't goto Hell. I can't go anywhere I don't believe in. Thats why I can't goto Indiana. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CloseTheBlastDo Posted October 1, 2003 Share Posted October 1, 2003 Rainer511, OK - well, first of all, I must apologise. I was making my comments on just my memory. The last time I actually read the bible thouroughly was a couple of years ago - and I don't actually keep one in the house anymore. But through the miracle of the internet, you now have the Bible avaliable online! (Woohoo) So I could refresh my memory about the verses in question very easiely... What makes me think the tomb was visited 'several' times...? Luke Ch 23: ----------- 52 This man went unto Pilate, and begged the body of Jesus. 53 And he took it down, and wrapped it in linen, and laid it in a sepulchre that was hewn in stone, wherein never man before was laid. 54 And that day was the preparation, and the sabbath drew on. 55 And the women also, which came with him from Galilee, followed after, and beheld the sepulchre, and how his body was laid. 56 And they returned, and prepared spices and ointments; and rested the sabbath day according to the commandment. Ok - so stating implicitily the tomb was visited 'several' times was a slight over-statement on my part. It was visited at least twice, by two independant groups of people according to the above verses. One was the group who 'prepared' him, and then this other group of women who 'came with him from Galilee' and who 'followed after - and witnessed the body and how it was laid. Basically, people were free to walk to and from the tomb as they pleased. This is also backed up by other verses from Matthew: Matt Ch. 27: ------------ 62 Now the next day, that followed the day of the preparation, the chief priests and Pharisees came together unto Pilate, 63 Saying, Sir, we remember that that deceiver said, while he was yet alive, After three days I will rise again. 64 Command therefore that the sepulchre be made sure until the third day, lest his disciples come by night, and steal him away, and say unto the people, He is risen from the dead: so the last error shall be worse than the first. 65 Pilate said unto them, Ye have a watch: go your way, make it as sure as ye can. 66 So they went, and made the sepulchre sure, sealing the stone, and setting a watch. A watch was only set on the day AFTER the preperation. i.e. more than one full day had passed between Jesus being bought 'dead' off the cross and placed in the tomb by the time the watch was set up. ...now that I have refreshed my memory of the verses, I have now realise my earlier hypothesis was slightly innaccurate. I shouldn't have tried to just remember that stuff - I apologise. First I will run through more verses of particular interest, and then I will re-state my hypothesis more firmly... Luke Ch. 23: --------------- 47 Now when the centurion saw what was done, he glorified God, saying, Certainly this was a righteous man. THe above line is repeated nearly identically in Matthew and Mark. I have chosen to quote the Luke reference, however, because in this version, the centurion interestingly states 'certainly this was a righteous man'. If the centurion did believe this, it is natural to assume the centurion would not have believed he deserved to be killed. Mark CH. 15: ------------ 44 And Pilate marvelled if he were already dead: and calling unto him the centurion, he asked him whether he had been any while dead. 45 And when he knew it of the centurion, he gave the body to Joseph. If it's in doubt whether pilate called to the same centurion which said Jesus was a 'righteous' man, take into consideration that just a few verses earlier, the believing centurion was also refered to as 'THE centurion', and there are no other centurions mentioned. I think it's very safe to conclude it was indeed the same centurion. So - the bottom line: a. Pilate had at least doubts as to whether Jesus was actually dead. (He hadn't actually spent that long on the cross - only several hours. The gospels differ as to the exact amount of time, but certainly no longer than half a day. Some people survived crucificion for DAYS before finally dying. THat was the point - it was a VERY slow, painful, terrible death) b. Pilate did not check himself. Instead, he asked the centurion if he was dead - who confirmed that yes - he was indeed dead. ...BUT... c. The centurion Pilate asked was almost certinly the same centurion who just earlier proclaimed 'this was a righteous man'. John 19: -------- 38 And after this Joseph of Arimathaea, being a disciple of Jesus, but secretly for fear of the Jews, besought Pilate that he might take away the body of Jesus: and Pilate gave him leave. He came therefore, and took the body of Jesus. So Joseph, the man who 'claimed' the body of Jesus was secretly a follower. Conerning Nicodemous and what he bought to the 'preperation': John Ch. 19 ----------- 39 And there came also Nicodemus, which at the first came to Jesus by night, and brought a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about an hundred pound weight. btw - Note that the bit about Nicodemous 'came by night' implies he arrived 'seperately' - very possibly later than everybody else. Again, further building the impression of people freely moving back and forth from the tomb. The next verse does refer to Jesus' body being wound in linen with the spices. I guess it's natural to assume the spices refered to are the ones Nicodemus bought - but no-where does it say these are 'traditionally' used when preparing the dead. I mean, I'm not saying that isn't true. I actually don't know. If you have evidence to show this, then that's fair enough. All I'm pointing out is that it's not implied in the scriptures. ...and in any case, the healing virtues - used 'traditionally' or otherwise - of these substances is unquestionable, regardless of this fact. The medical benifits of aloe vera (extract of the aloe leaf) are well documented and avaliable from all sorts of sources. I would hope you won't expect me to provide 'proof' of something so obvious. Myrrh: ---Medicinal Action and Uses---Astringent, healing. Tonic and stimulant. A direct emmenagogue, a tonic in dyspepsia, an expectorant in the absence of feverish symptoms, a stimulant to the mucous tissues, a stomachic carminative, exciting appetite and the flow of gastric juice, and an astringent wash. It is used in chronic catarrh, phthisis pulmonalis, chlorosis, and in amenorrhoea is often combined with aloes and iron. As a wash it is good for spongy gums, ulcerated throat and aphthous stomatitis, and the tincture is also applied to foul and indolentulcers. It has been found helpful in bronchorrhoea and leucorrhoea. It has also been used as a vermifuge. When long-continued rubefacient effect is needed, a plaster may be made with 1 1/2 OZ. each of camphor, myrrh, and balsam of Peru rubbed together and added to 32 OZ. of melted lead plaster, the whole being stirred until cooling causes it to thicken. Myrrh is a common ingredient of toothpowders, and is used with borax in tincture, with other ingredients, as a mouth-wash. The Compound Tincture, or Horse Tincture, is used in veterinary practice for healing wounds. Meetiga, the trade-name of Arabian Myrrh, is more brittle and gummy than that of Somaliland and has not its white markings. FROM: http://science.howstuffworks.com/framed.htm?parent=question283.htm&url=http://botanical.com/botanical/mgmh/m/myrrh-66.html This is not a religious (or anti-religious site). It is totally unbiased. Ok - so here's the final analysis of these verses: Jesus' death is confirmed by a centurion who 'believed' in his righteousness, unbeknown to Pilate. (If Pilate HAD known the centurion believed, he certainly wouldn't have trusted HIS word - and his word alone - on whether Jesus was indeed dead!) Jesus' body was taken away - ALSO - by a secret follower of his ministry. His body was then taken to a tomb and left unattended by anybody in authority for over a day! 'Several' people came back and forth from the tomb during this period - without checks. Nicodemous bought substances which have known healing properties to the tomb. So the question no longer is - would it have been possible for Jesus to leave the tomb if he came off the cross alive - but which of the many perfectly plausible possibilities do you choose as to how it actually happenned...! The error I made in my earlier hypothesis was I forgot that the issue of Jesus getting past the guards is probably not even relavent - the guards were not nessesarily even there at the time! There is only one, BIG remaining riddle to solve. When the tomb was eventually 'sealed' (sometime on the second day), how did they not know that Jesus was not there? I'll move onto that in part II! I have to get on with some work while I'm - well - at work! (I know you have other issues with the theory, but I don't see them as massive holes - and I'll explain why...) Dont' worry - I'll hit all your points in due course... I'll give you a chance to digest and dispute my above comments before I start my next barrage! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vegietto Posted October 1, 2003 Author Share Posted October 1, 2003 yall all have very good points but i still say that it is physically impossible to make it rain 40 days an 40 nights and raise water and keep lions from eating daniel, i mean yeah some could possibly happened but i don't think so i mean their is no way that someone could walk over water now that lizard thing can but no human can do it if they can i want some prove of a human walking on water Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lukeskywalker1 Posted October 1, 2003 Share Posted October 1, 2003 Nothing is impossible, with God... Jesus was fully God, fully man, so he could do what he wants.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vegietto Posted October 1, 2003 Author Share Posted October 1, 2003 hey man i agree he may be a fully god then why does he let people get killed or little children starve to death and about the bible how does trumpets knock down walls huh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vegietto Posted October 1, 2003 Author Share Posted October 1, 2003 i mean i know that god has a plan for us but starving people is his plan well that really bites i mean how could u let people starve like that huh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lukeskywalker1 Posted October 1, 2003 Share Posted October 1, 2003 i mean i know that god has a plan for us but starving people is his plan well that really bites i mean how could u let people starve like that huh Thats tough to explain, im not sure why that happens. Could be anything... hey man i agree he may be a fully god then why does he let people get killed or little children starve to death and about the bible how does trumpets knock down walls huh Thats possible for sound waves to break objects, like glass. If we didnt die, then theres no point in needing God, we wouldnt need anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vegietto Posted October 1, 2003 Author Share Posted October 1, 2003 why is it tough it should be easy he is mean he doesn't like them so he maked them starve.I know that we will die but why starve them that is madness it is pure evil to do i mean ok in war or a murde ok but stavation that is stupid and i know sounds waves carry but they can't be that strong. But for real god is terrible to starve people Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vestril Posted October 1, 2003 Share Posted October 1, 2003 Originally posted by vegietto i mean i know that god has a plan for us but starving people is his plan well that really bites i mean how could u let people starve like that huh I think that that is a good, meaningful question, however I think that if there were a God, and it was like the one Christians worship, it would probably asks the same one 'how could you [humans/my followers] let so many people starve'. The lesson here is that you can't expect someone or something else to solve all of your problems, you have to try your hardest. If you believe in God, understand that he will not help you in this life, he is only an icon and a reson for you to spur yourself. For the handful of 'miracles' when a devout person prayed to God and was cured from cancer, or whatever the case may be, there are an overwhelming flood of cases where the devout prayed to God and their loved one died. God gives us a reason to be good people, but we cannot expect him to do everything for us, we have to do things on our own. Prayer is a good way of practicing humility and it is also a good way to develop optimisim, a healthy thing to have in any situation =) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinWalker Posted October 1, 2003 Share Posted October 1, 2003 Originally posted by lukeskywalker1 Nothing is impossible, with God... Which is precisely the reason why a god, as a boundless concept, is disregarded by many intellectuals. A god invalidates the laws of physics and makes life pointless. On the other hand, being godless makes life worth living. There are boundaries that the universe follows and the knowledge I discover can be passed on to my children to be expanded upon, revised, and used to enhance humanity. But I don't disregard the lessons of christianity, because our ancestors, in spite of their probably misguided beliefs, used the mythology that surrounds many christian stories, such as the flood, Daniel and the lions' den, David and Goliath, etc., to teach and pass on wisdom. The essence of the wisdom in christianity (along with most of the world's other religions) has value. I just think it's time for humanity to "grow up" and shed its past mythos, much like a 10 year-old comes to terms with Santa Claus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lukeskywalker1 Posted October 1, 2003 Share Posted October 1, 2003 Daniel and the lions' den, David and Goliath Why cant they be possible? Im mostly talking about David and Goliath, David and the lion's den is possible, it would just be unlikely that he would come out alive... but who knows? Now with david and goliath, thats very possible. It even give goliaths hieght. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lukeskywalker1 Posted October 1, 2003 Share Posted October 1, 2003 Sorry about the double post, but i had to leave school right in the middle of my post... anyways, back on track, its possible that a boy... around 14-16 years old could kill a guy who was about 9 ft, 3 inches (i think) many people just say 10, but the bible says 9 and something. anyways, goliath underestimated david. Remember david got 5 (i think) stones that were smooth from the river. He had already killed a few animals in his time to protect sheep (remember, he was a shepard) The bible says he was strong and handsome. His skin was dark (so you could tell he spent a lot of time outdoors, which is probably how he built up his strength) So, goliath underestimated david, started taunting, and david shot a rock at goliath with his sling. If a rock hit you full force right between your eyes (or probably anywhere on your head) you would be knocked out. Or at least out for a few minutes, enough time for david to kill goliath with goliath's own sword. Then when goliath was dead, the israelites rushed in, and defeated the philistines (I know goliath was from Gath, i think gath was part of the philistines land) Also, its possible, that the people liked david more than saul (there king) and saul became jealous. And you prolly know the rest... its too long, and i dont want to type that much. The lesson here is that you can't expect someone or something else to solve all of your problems, you have to try your hardest. If you believe in God, understand that he will not help you in this life, he is only an icon and a reson for you to spur yourself. For the handful of 'miracles' when a devout person prayed to God and was cured from cancer, or whatever the case may be, there are an overwhelming flood of cases where the devout prayed to God and their loved one died. God gives us a reason to be good people, but we cannot expect him to do everything for us, we have to do things on our own. Prayer is a good way of practicing humility and it is also a good way to develop optimisim, a healthy thing to have in any situation =) I believe that everything happens for a specific reason. Now it could be more than one reason, or it could just be one. The reason it happens might (and probably) wont be clear at that time. For example, lets look at war, its not a good, thing, but in the end, it can result in something good. (im not saying its good) Example: The war in iraq, was bad at the time, but now, the iraqies have freedom, more than before at least... Of course, this is perspective, it obviously doesnt benifit suddam, or his sons, or and of the government leaders. God can turn something bad, into something good. Of course, if you believe the revelation, my view is, that every single thing that happens is to prepare the world for that, if you remove just on war, half the world could be different... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vestril Posted October 2, 2003 Share Posted October 2, 2003 I believe that everything happens for a specific reason. Now it could be more than one reason, or it could just be one. The reason it happens might (and probably) wont be clear at that time. I wasn't arguing with that point of view, I was simply suggesting that we can't expect God to fix our problems, and we can't sit passively and assume that whatever is happening is happening because it'sa part of the plan. We have to improve ourselves and do the best that we can, and have faith that good will come of our efforts. Whether that faith is placed in humanity or in God is up to the people who have it. Personally, I prefer to belive that man has accomplished the good he has on his own (or her own, as the case may be ) and that we don't need a deity to do good for us. Conversley I prefer to believe that our weaknesses are our own, and do not belong to some sort of Devil. I don't mean to say that religion has to be a crutch, just that many people seem to use it that way. I think if more people actually lived by religious precepts, the world would be a better place. The trouble is that many people use religion as a justification Very few Christians, in my opinion, behave as Christ would have, even when they are trying to act Christian. In my (not so humble, but still limited ) opinion, Christ would have accepted other Religions if they spread the right message, and would have accepted all people (specifically gays...) so long as they lived a good life. One of my Protestant Christian friends told me that you must believe that Jesus is the savior if you wish to go to heaven. This seems to be a common theme in Christianity, and I contend that if Jesus was as he is said to be, that wouldn't be the case. Gandhi would be able to go to heaven , people who have never heard of Jesus (and yes, they do indeed exist) would be able to go to heaven, good people would be able to go to heaven, regardless of who or what they believe in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CloseTheBlastDo Posted October 2, 2003 Share Posted October 2, 2003 OK - Part II of the 'Did Jesus Die On The Cross' post! Before I move on to the 'sealed' tomb, I just want to side-track slightly and explain how I approach the 'gospels'. Firstly, yes - in the gopels, it mentions in several places Jesus' prophecy that he would die and then arise on the third day. i.e. he could read the future. ...it also mentions him healing the sick, raising the dead (other than himself), walking on water, turning water to wine, feeding thousands from just a few fishes and loaves of bread etc. etc. It also mentions other heavenly visitations (angels etc.) Now - let me make it clear from the start -I don't believe these actually happenned. Or if there were events of note similar to these, they did not happen as stated in the gospels. Like any well-established 'myth', it will be a constant mix of truth and fiction and/or embelishment. Yes I know, I'm a doubting heathen! But there are two over-riding paradims which - as far as I am concerned - make it perfectly reasonable for me to NOT accept these various miracles just at face value as presented in the Bible. I could explain both in detail, but the first one is more relavant, and will help to keep the length of my post down. (I know I can ramble a bit!) ...but to understand this paradim, you have to have the ability to 'step out' - even briefly - of your own belief system. In the cases of certain people who frequent these forums, I very much doubt this is possible, at least at this point in time. (Please note - I'm not talking about ALL religious fundamentalists who post here - but I think it's fair to say MOST). The paradim is this: If I were to believe ANY text which had SOME kind of historical authenticity, AND mentioned divine occurances - I would quite literally have to believe in practically every single religion on this planet. And then of course in this case, the amount of contradictions between the various belief systems would be unconcilable. I know I'm going to get the usual "The Bible is more conclusive and has more historical backing than any other religious text ... blah blah blah". Seriously - save that kind of talk for people who are easiely misled... To illustrate my points a little better, I'm going to put a question specifically to you Rainer551. I'm going to mention a bit of Mormon history again. I'm not trying to pick on the Mormon's specifically (I like to think I'm fairly universal in my attacks on religion ). I only use the Mormon's again because I know, Rainer, you do not believe in their faith - and also I happen to have quite a bit of information about them avaliable to me at the moment... ...anyway - the Mormon 'history' is CHOCK full of all kinds of heavenly visitations. From God and JC himself, (...Trinity?! ...what Trinity!! ) to all kinds of angelic visitations - not just to Joe Smith, but to groups of people and in at least a couple of cases - whole congregations numbering in the hundreads!!. ...in fact, practically everybody and his dog were seeing - and talking to - heavenly visitors in that part of the country at that time. (OK - that's an exagguration - I'm talking relative to this day and age). So why don't you credit any of these visitations and miracles? This wouldn't be a case of... 'damn[ing] the source based on the beliefs of the source'. ...would it? (the above quote were your own words) Until you've explain why you can dismiss all these instances of miraculous events, I don't feel particularly inclined or required to go any further into my explinations as to why I don't believe the instances mentioned in the Bible. 'Gospel' events have only 4 independant accounts. The 'events' of the early Mormon church were recorded by many, many people. All were believers of course - but what else do you expect!! My point is there were a hell of a lot more accounts than 4... New testament events happenned 2000 years ago. The start of the Mormon church is only just over 150 years ago. So why can you dismiss all this and yet accept the Bible - without bieng FORCED to take into account you personal approval / disapproval of the eventual belief system?! I'd be VERY interested in hearing your reply... (I doubt I'll even get anything like a sensible answer from a lot of the other 'christians' on this forum - they'll undoubtedly miss the point I'm trying to make, and just start a mindless Mormon-bashing session... ) Considering the kind of 'miracles' that are MEANT to have happenned in the New Testament, there are next to no alternate sources of evidence for them. The only source of evidence that actually mentions the events directly is solely the Bible. THat's it. You can use other historical sources to back up the existance of a person called Jesus Christ. And that many many people believed he came back from the dead. And believed in all the other 'miracles' he performed... But the miraculous events 'themselves' have only the gospels to back them up... I'll use one brief example to illustrate my point... Matt Ch.27: ----------- 50 Jesus, when he had cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost. 51 And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent; 52 And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose, 53 And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many. OK- so there is a big earthquake and the temple was rent in twain at the time Jesus died. Any record of this from ANY alternate source? Graves opened at that time (whatever that means). And then after the 'ressurection', people came out of their graves, went into the city and APPEARED TO MANY? Any record of such a marvellous occurence ANYWHERE else in any other historical document from that time and area?! Or was this just a normal day for your average citizen of the holy land?! 'Oh look - their's dead people wandering around the city again!' The fact there is not even a mention of this anywhere else - even anything 'out of the ordinary' - is surely something to make you sit up and think - 'eh?' ...it's also interesting that only the gospel of Matthew even mentions these grand events! ...and my goodness - for some of the most important events ever to take place in the history of mankind - they are shockingly short and lacking in detail! Where did Jesus go after his ressurection (and after he appeared to a few people)? He assended into heaven of course! ...only TWO of the gospels actually bother to mention this though...! Matthew just ends with Jesus' words... Matt Ch.28: ----------- 18 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. 19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: 20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen John ends with a cryptic ending to rival any work of fiction... John Ch.21: ----------- 25 And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen. Luke dedicates all of 10 words to the 'accension'. As you can see, the assention apparently took place in Bethany. Luke Ch.24: ----------- 33 And they rose up the same hour, and returned to Jerusalem, and found the eleven gathered together, and them that were with them, 34 Saying, The Lord is risen indeed, and hath appeared to Simon. 35 And they told what things were done in the way, and how he was known of them in breaking of bread. ... 50 And he led them out as far as to Bethany, and he lifted up his hands, and blessed them. 51 And it came to pass, while he blessed them, he was parted from them, and carried up into heaven. And 14 more from Mark. This version doesn't actually say specifically where the accension happenned, but it mentions when Jesus 'appeared to the eleven'. THis is also referenced in Luke, and in that account, that happens in Jerusalem... Mark Ch.16: ----------- 14 Afterward he appeared unto the eleven as they sat at meat, and upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them which had seen him after he was risen. ... 19 So then after the Lord had spoken unto them, he was received up into heaven, and sat on the right hand of God. 20 And they went forth, and preached every where, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word with signs following. Amen. Notice that it doesn't say anything about them going anywhere before Jesus accended - so you would naturally assume he accended from Jeruselum - not Bethany as described in Luke! Surely - by anybody's standards - that's precious little description of the last known earthly 'occurance' concerning Jesus!! At least the crucifixion had more vivid descriptions. Presise times of day, descriptions of the weather (sky darkening, earth rumbling etc) Here - there is practically NO detail. In both cases it's just 'he went into heaven'. And two of the gospels don't even bother to mention it at all...! ...sorry, I've babbled on again. And i haven't gotten onto the tomb! Sorry, I'm gonna have to leave that till tomorrow - there is now going to have to be a part III! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XERXES Posted October 2, 2003 Share Posted October 2, 2003 Originally posted by CloseTheBlastDo I agree with everything you've said SkinWalker, and very well put, but unfortunately it will do no good... Since your forgetting SkinWalker - there is a perfectly legitimate, tangible proof of life-after-death, heaven and hell - the whole deal... it's called... [big dramatic music] THE BIBLE! Yes sir, with this one book you can prove BEYOND A SHADOW OF A DOUBT the existance of all this - and more. Not only this, but it renders all other contradictory proofs from any other sources INVALID! Yes, you heard right folks - absolutely invalid. Ever wondered whether it's right to stone your neighbour to death? Are you puzzled as to why members of all those religions with the funny names and strange head-pieces deserve to go to hell? All these answers and more are in this book. Isn't it a marvel!! ...and yours for only $5 from any good bookstore. Buy one today! (No scientific background required. Pictures are optional.) ...sorry, I won't post in this thread again. Just felt like a bit of Friday humour! edit: I hate how people attack what they dont understand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.