Org Mobile Site
Originally Posted by Tiaexz:
I believe the Noah story was influenced by the Babylon's flood myth, Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla might be able to shed more information on that as a History scholar and a Christian, he might have looked for Historical facts to match the myths to reality. I remember there at least being a TV show which discussed a big flooding which might have seemed "global" but was far more local to a big regional area around the Dead Sea, perhaps, or another large land body of water.
Actually, I think the only knowledge I have of the possible historical orgiin of the flood is that same TV program! To be honest, it never bothered me a great deal.I believe the Noah story was influenced by the Babylon's flood myth, Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla might be able to shed more information on that as a History scholar and a Christian, he might have looked for Historical facts to match the myths to reality. I remember there at least being a TV show which discussed a big flooding which might have seemed "global" but was far more local to a big regional area around the Dead Sea, perhaps, or another large land body of water.
Moses, on the other hand, I find quite interesting, but we digress.
rvg is correct that a truly celibate man can better dedicate his whole life to God, but it does not follow that all priests must be Great Divines who spend two hours on a Sunday preaching the rest working to develop arthritic knees. In Anglicanism the priest usually comes with a wife, and she is as much involved in pastoral care as her husband. They are a team.
Beyond that, most prists have histoircally either been married, kept concubines, or been homosexual. Not allowing priests to marry because "sex is bad" leads to the absurd situation where consensual sex with an adult becomes equated, in their minds, with child rape. This is far from a modern problem, though historical solution for the offending clerics were far more inventive than today.
Originally Posted by rvg:
Sure. Women do not get ordained for the simple reason that all of Apostles were men. Jesus deliberately only chose men for those roles.
What about Mary Magdelen? She even had her own gospel until some 4th century Assyrians got rid of it.Sure. Women do not get ordained for the simple reason that all of Apostles were men. Jesus deliberately only chose men for those roles.
Originally Posted by Idaho:
What about Mary Magdelen? She even had her own gospel until some 4th century Assyrians got rid of it.
It becomes a self-fulfilling argument - they are all men because everything that we choose to view as "authentic" showed they were men. It is merely coincidence that any evidence that points to women having a broader role in the church isn't properly Christian.What about Mary Magdelen? She even had her own gospel until some 4th century Assyrians got rid of it.
Originally Posted by Idaho:
What about Mary Magdelen? She even had her own gospel until some 4th century Assyrians got rid of it.
She was not an apostle.What about Mary Magdelen? She even had her own gospel until some 4th century Assyrians got rid of it.
Originally Posted by rvg:
She was not an apostle.
She was. She isn't now.She was not an apostle.
Originally Posted by Idaho:
She was. She isn't now.
If that is what you choose to believe, that's okay. I believe otherwise.She was. She isn't now.
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla:
atheists claim that you have to choose between God and Science
atheists claim that you have to choose between God and Science
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla:
Actually, I think the only knowledge I have of the possible historical orgiin of the flood is that same TV program!
This is unacceptable. Choose between your TV and your religion. Now.Actually, I think the only knowledge I have of the possible historical orgiin of the flood is that same TV program!
Originally Posted by Idaho:
What about Mary Magdelen? She even had her own gospel until some 4th century Assyrians got rid of it.
Have you read said Gospel? All extant evidence point to Mary of Bethany a.k.a. Mary Magdelene as most likely Jesus "wife", not an Apostle, in the sense of one of his inner "managerial" circle of followers, that does not mean she is not an "Apostle" in the literal sense and indeed the Roman Church describes her as "Apostle to the Apostles" because she brought them the news of the resurrection.What about Mary Magdelen? She even had her own gospel until some 4th century Assyrians got rid of it.
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla:
Have you read said Gospel? All extant evidence point to Mary of Bethany a.k.a. Mary Magdelene as most likely Jesus "wife", not an Apostle, in the sense of one of his inner "managerial" circle of followers, that does not mean she is not an "Apostle" in the literal sense and indeed the Roman Church describes her as "Apostle to the Apostles" because she brought them the news of the resurrection.
Have you read said Gospel? All extant evidence point to Mary of Bethany a.k.a. Mary Magdelene as most likely Jesus "wife", not an Apostle, in the sense of one of his inner "managerial" circle of followers, that does not mean she is not an "Apostle" in the literal sense and indeed the Roman Church describes her as "Apostle to the Apostles" because she brought them the news of the resurrection.
So does that mean that women can be popes but not priests?
Or is it just another story to pick and choose at like the rest of the Bible?
Originally Posted by Idaho:
So does that mean that women can be popes but not priests?
Or is it just another story to pick and choose at like the rest of the Bible?
One might as well. The Bible itself is picking and choosing - viewed by many as a document whose content has withstood the test of time, remaining inviolate over the years... Even though there are so many different versions and translations. To try and get a logical approach to this would hardly fit with belief in any case.So does that mean that women can be popes but not priests?
Or is it just another story to pick and choose at like the rest of the Bible?
Originally Posted by gaelic cowboy:
To be fair I dont think PVC has ever said it's literal ever.
I never said he did, I was responding to the article.To be fair I dont think PVC has ever said it's literal ever.
Originally Posted by Lemur:
God doesn't care about it, just that we do good works and live good lives.
The problem with that point of view (and I don't doubt that it is relatively popular) is that then how do we know what constitutes a good life without interpreting the poetry? "Good" is such a relative term that in order to objectivise it, as religious groups seek to do, it must be based on something and that something is the interpretation of the bible. Whilst most people would be able to point out things like charity and such as a good deed, moral grey areas are what this philosophy of the bible would struggle to deal with.God doesn't care about it, just that we do good works and live good lives.
Originally Posted by CountArach:
Whilst most people would be able to point out things like charity and such as a good deed, moral grey areas are what this philosophy of the bible would struggle to deal with.
Oh, moral gray areas are tough no matter what doctrine or philosophy you accept. I suppose things might be simple for a fundamentalist, but that's the appeal of fundamentalism, isn't it? No more messy decisions, it's all simple now.Whilst most people would be able to point out things like charity and such as a good deed, moral grey areas are what this philosophy of the bible would struggle to deal with.
Difficult moral decisions will always be difficult. (Exemplum gratum: You're in a horrible flood, holding two babies. You need one free arm to swim or all of you will die. Do you drop one child to allow yourself and one baby to live? If so, how do you choose which child to drop? Or do you attempt to swim with no arms, probably condemning all three of you to death? Explain your reasoning and show your work.)
I believe we as a species tend to over-complicate our relationship with the Divine. "Do good works" can be fairly easily derived from the Golden Rule, as per Rabbi Hillel. Nothing is going to make moral quandaries any less quandaratic (yes, I know that word doesn't exist, but it should).
Originally Posted by Lemur:
Oh, moral gray areas are tough no matter what doctrine or philosophy you accept. I suppose things might be simple for a fundamentalist, but that's the appeal of fundamentalism, isn't it? No more messy decisions, it's all simple now.
Exactly, some people need clarity in their lives, whether it is based on sound reasoning or not.Oh, moral gray areas are tough no matter what doctrine or philosophy you accept. I suppose things might be simple for a fundamentalist, but that's the appeal of fundamentalism, isn't it? No more messy decisions, it's all simple now.
Originally Posted by Lemur:
You're in a horrible flood, holding two babies. You need one free arm to swim or all of you will die. Do you drop one child to allow yourself and one baby to live? If so, how do you choose which child to drop? Or do you attempt to swim with no arms, probably condemning all three of you to death? Explain your reasoning and show your work.
Drop both babies. Repopulate the planet.You're in a horrible flood, holding two babies. You need one free arm to swim or all of you will die. Do you drop one child to allow yourself and one baby to live? If so, how do you choose which child to drop? Or do you attempt to swim with no arms, probably condemning all three of you to death? Explain your reasoning and show your work.
Originally Posted by Idaho:
So does that mean that women can be popes but not priests?
Or is it just another story to pick and choose at like the rest of the Bible?
If "the Bible" were any other document you would have no problem with the practice of sifting it and trying to place a value on it's constituant parts. Demanding an all-or-nothing approach from Christians when you're an atheist is asking them to build your strawman for you.So does that mean that women can be popes but not priests?
Or is it just another story to pick and choose at like the rest of the Bible?
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk:
One might as well. The Bible itself is picking and choosing - viewed by many as a document whose content has withstood the test of time, remaining inviolate over the years... Even though there are so many different versions and translations. To try and get a logical approach to this would hardly fit with belief in any case.
This is not a particularly accurate representation of the Biblical text. The Bible has been translated into most languages, but it has not been translated "through" them, all modern stranslation are based on Greek and Hebrew prototypes, it has got to the point that they are all based on the same protoypes. Further, as Greek and Hebrew are languages designed for accurate scribal reproduction erros are (relatively) easy to pick up. This is no way eliminates scribal error, but it goes a very long way to mitigating it.One might as well. The Bible itself is picking and choosing - viewed by many as a document whose content has withstood the test of time, remaining inviolate over the years... Even though there are so many different versions and translations. To try and get a logical approach to this would hardly fit with belief in any case.
As to a "logical" approach, philology and textual criticism were developed for the Bible.
Originally Posted by CountArach:
I never said he did, I was responding to the article.
The problem with that point of view (and I don't doubt that it is relatively popular) is that then how do we know what constitutes a good life without interpreting the poetry? "Good" is such a relative term that in order to objectivise it, as religious groups seek to do, it must be based on something and that something is the interpretation of the bible. Whilst most people would be able to point out things like charity and such as a good deed, moral grey areas are what this philosophy of the bible would struggle to deal with.
Moral "grey areas" are where you have a decision you don't want to make. You will never be in a situation where two decisions are actually morally equivilent.I never said he did, I was responding to the article.
The problem with that point of view (and I don't doubt that it is relatively popular) is that then how do we know what constitutes a good life without interpreting the poetry? "Good" is such a relative term that in order to objectivise it, as religious groups seek to do, it must be based on something and that something is the interpretation of the bible. Whilst most people would be able to point out things like charity and such as a good deed, moral grey areas are what this philosophy of the bible would struggle to deal with.
Originally Posted by Lemur:
Oh, moral gray areas are tough no matter what doctrine or philosophy you accept. I suppose things might be simple for a fundamentalist, but that's the appeal of fundamentalism, isn't it? No more messy decisions, it's all simple now.
Difficult moral decisions will always be difficult. (Exemplum gratum: You're in a horrible flood, holding two babies. You need one free arm to swim or all of you will die. Do you drop one child to allow yourself and one baby to live? If so, how do you choose which child to drop? Or do you attempt to swim with no arms, probably condemning all three of you to death? Explain your reasoning and show your work.)
Quite simply, I would roll onto my back and place the babes on my chest. In this way I would turn myself into a human raft, this is the only solution which offers a chance of us all surviving, and it has the added advantage that it conserves my evergy if I live, and I should remain bouyant if I die, therefore increasing the chances the babes will survive and be resuced.Oh, moral gray areas are tough no matter what doctrine or philosophy you accept. I suppose things might be simple for a fundamentalist, but that's the appeal of fundamentalism, isn't it? No more messy decisions, it's all simple now.
Difficult moral decisions will always be difficult. (Exemplum gratum: You're in a horrible flood, holding two babies. You need one free arm to swim or all of you will die. Do you drop one child to allow yourself and one baby to live? If so, how do you choose which child to drop? Or do you attempt to swim with no arms, probably condemning all three of you to death? Explain your reasoning and show your work.)
The key thing here is that both from a traditional moral and utilitarian standpoint the priority should be to save the babies becauce A: they are helpless and B: they are the next generation.
Originally Posted by :
I believe we as a species tend to over-complicate our relationship with the Divine. "Do good works" can be fairly easily derived from the Golden Rule, as per Rabbi Hillel. Nothing is going to make moral quandaries any less quandaratic (yes, I know that word doesn't exist, but it should).
I detest this concept of the "Golden Rule", repricocity is all well and good, but self sacrifice in the interests of other is far superior. If everybody does as he would be done to some will take with the justification that you should only have what you can take and hold - and they will take until taken from. On the other hand, if everyone seeks the best for others and not themselves everyone will be looked after.I believe we as a species tend to over-complicate our relationship with the Divine. "Do good works" can be fairly easily derived from the Golden Rule, as per Rabbi Hillel. Nothing is going to make moral quandaries any less quandaratic (yes, I know that word doesn't exist, but it should).
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla:
This is not a particularly accurate representation of the Biblical text. The Bible has been translated into most languages, but it has not been translated "through" them, all modern stranslation are based on Greek and Hebrew prototypes, it has got to the point that they are all based on the same protoypes. Further, as Greek and Hebrew are languages designed for accurate scribal reproduction erros are (relatively) easy to pick up. This is no way eliminates scribal error, but it goes a very long way to mitigating it.
There's the Catholic Bible. And the Protestant Bible. And the Coptic Bible. And the Greek Orthodox bible. And several others that I've forgotten.This is not a particularly accurate representation of the Biblical text. The Bible has been translated into most languages, but it has not been translated "through" them, all modern stranslation are based on Greek and Hebrew prototypes, it has got to the point that they are all based on the same protoypes. Further, as Greek and Hebrew are languages designed for accurate scribal reproduction erros are (relatively) easy to pick up. This is no way eliminates scribal error, but it goes a very long way to mitigating it.
They're different, containing different books. And all are of course the right one.
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla:
Quite simply, I would roll onto my back and place the babes on my chest. In this way I would turn myself into a human raft, this is the only solution which offers a chance of us all surviving, and it has the added advantage that it conserves my evergy if I live, and I should remain bouyant if I die, therefore increasing the chances the babes will survive and be resuced.
So, given the outcomes you were initially advised about, all three would die - as soon as you go under, the babies roll off. Although typical of the answer to this type of theoretical question with defined boundaries.Quite simply, I would roll onto my back and place the babes on my chest. In this way I would turn myself into a human raft, this is the only solution which offers a chance of us all surviving, and it has the added advantage that it conserves my evergy if I live, and I should remain bouyant if I die, therefore increasing the chances the babes will survive and be resuced.
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla:
I detest this concept of the "Golden Rule", repricocity is all well and good, but self sacrifice in the interests of other is far superior.
I've got a Matthew 7:12 in my back pocket that would question this line of reasoning. Anyway, self-sacrifice is sometimes appropriate, sometimes not. As you illustrate in your answer to my silly hypothetical, sacrificing yourself for a child is almost always the right thing. Immolating yourself in the service of, say, a cult leader? A politician? An abstract cause? Not so much.I detest this concept of the "Golden Rule", repricocity is all well and good, but self sacrifice in the interests of other is far superior.
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk:
So, given the outcomes you were initially advised about, all three would die - as soon as you go under, the babies roll off. Although typical of the answer to this type of theoretical question with defined boundaries.
My hypothetical was just that, and I see no problem with his answer. Might work, might not, but it's a valid choice. PVC would choose the riskiest move in hopes of saving both children. (I plucked that example, by the way, from a real-life case that shook me up pretty badly when I read about it a few years ago.)So, given the outcomes you were initially advised about, all three would die - as soon as you go under, the babies roll off. Although typical of the answer to this type of theoretical question with defined boundaries.
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk:
One might as well. The Bible itself is picking and choosing - viewed by many as a document whose content has withstood the test of time, remaining inviolate over the years... Even though there are so many different versions and translations. To try and get a logical approach to this would hardly fit with belief in any case.
And now we get to the nub of it. Yes it's fine for belief to be belief if it's just someone's fancy or hobby. Challenging this would seem pointless and would interfering with someone's personal, spiritual domain. It's when these unsubstantiated beliefs are used to make decisions and judgements. When they are used to define a nation's moral imperative or justify political pressure on a raft of social policy, then we should certainly challenge them and demand a higher standard of rationale.One might as well. The Bible itself is picking and choosing - viewed by many as a document whose content has withstood the test of time, remaining inviolate over the years... Even though there are so many different versions and translations. To try and get a logical approach to this would hardly fit with belief in any case.
Originally Posted by Lemur:
I've got a Matthew 7:12 in my back pocket that would question this line of reasoning. Anyway, self-sacrifice is sometimes appropriate, sometimes not. As you illustrate in your answer to my silly hypothetical, sacrificing yourself for a child is almost always the right thing. Immolating yourself in the service of, say, a cult leader? A politician? An abstract cause? Not so much.
Well, if you Matthew's whole Gospel in your back pocket you would know that it says, essentailly "Love God, Love oneanother, forgive your enemies, tollerate evil done against you, give to those who ask."I've got a Matthew 7:12 in my back pocket that would question this line of reasoning. Anyway, self-sacrifice is sometimes appropriate, sometimes not. As you illustrate in your answer to my silly hypothetical, sacrificing yourself for a child is almost always the right thing. Immolating yourself in the service of, say, a cult leader? A politician? An abstract cause? Not so much.
The fact is, everybody sane already lives by the Golden rule - those who kill to feed their drug habit doubtless believe that another would kill them to feed their own habit. Ask a man why he does a thing and his response is invariably "he would have done the same to me" and this holds no matter how grievous the offence. Certainly, there are those who wilfully cause suffering in the full knowledge that they are extraordinary, we call these people "evil".
If you don't believe me, look at what people post on the Org here.
Beyond that, it is a simple fact that if everybody who had food gave to everybody who was hungry we would have no starvation in the world and everyone would be fed. That is what I mean by "self sacrifice", giving for others at your own expense - not some sort of valorisation of suicide or deliberate flagelation.
Originally Posted by Idaho:
And now we get to the nub of it. Yes it's fine for belief to be belief if it's just someone's fancy or hobby. Challenging this would seem pointless and would interfering with someone's personal, spiritual domain. It's when these unsubstantiated beliefs are used to make decisions and judgements. When they are used to define a nation's moral imperative or justify political pressure on a raft of social policy, then we should certainly challenge them and demand a higher standard of rationale.
I have beliefs, you have beliefs. I think mine are right, you think yours are right. We both use those beliefs to guide our actions, but only one of us thinks the other shouldn't act on his beliefs.And now we get to the nub of it. Yes it's fine for belief to be belief if it's just someone's fancy or hobby. Challenging this would seem pointless and would interfering with someone's personal, spiritual domain. It's when these unsubstantiated beliefs are used to make decisions and judgements. When they are used to define a nation's moral imperative or justify political pressure on a raft of social policy, then we should certainly challenge them and demand a higher standard of rationale.
You should be more tollerant.
And don't give me any "you guys burned people at the stake" nonsense - because I never did that, or anything like it, and my hands are clean of those particular sins.
No we differ. I don't think my beliefs are right. I know they are often seem right, but some are irrational and cause me to make mistakes, or to snap to incorrect judgements. I challenge my beliefs, I try to look at the assumptions behind them, of the ways I need to change.
I'm sure if I pottered through the world I could find a religion that reinforced my existing beliefs, and gave me the confidence never to question again. But I reject that course.
I'm sure if I pottered through the world I could find a religion that reinforced my existing beliefs, and gave me the confidence never to question again. But I reject that course.
Originally Posted by Idaho:
No we differ. I don't think my beliefs are right. I know they are often seem right, but some are irrational and cause me to make mistakes, or to snap to incorrect judgements. I challenge my beliefs, I try to look at the assumptions behind them, of the ways I need to change.
I'm sure if I pottered through the world I could find a religion that reinforced my existing beliefs, and gave me the confidence never to question again. But I reject that course.
No we don't differNo we differ. I don't think my beliefs are right. I know they are often seem right, but some are irrational and cause me to make mistakes, or to snap to incorrect judgements. I challenge my beliefs, I try to look at the assumptions behind them, of the ways I need to change.
I'm sure if I pottered through the world I could find a religion that reinforced my existing beliefs, and gave me the confidence never to question again. But I reject that course.
That, sir, is the entire By-Our-Lady point.
I said you think your beliefs are right, not that you are utterly wedded to them.
Of course because I'm a Christian you probably suppose I don't know what "thinking" means.
Originally Posted by Idaho:
No we differ. I don't think my beliefs are right. I know they are often seem right, but some are irrational and cause me to make mistakes, or to snap to incorrect judgements. I challenge my beliefs, I try to look at the assumptions behind them, of the ways I need to change.
I'm sure if I pottered through the world I could find a religion that reinforced my existing beliefs, and gave me the confidence never to question again. But I reject that course.
Belonging to a religion doesn't necessarily mean having the confidence never to question it again. Faith has to be maintained, and I think asking questions can make it stronger. People who won't question their beliefs are afraid of losing them, in my opinion.No we differ. I don't think my beliefs are right. I know they are often seem right, but some are irrational and cause me to make mistakes, or to snap to incorrect judgements. I challenge my beliefs, I try to look at the assumptions behind them, of the ways I need to change.
I'm sure if I pottered through the world I could find a religion that reinforced my existing beliefs, and gave me the confidence never to question again. But I reject that course.
Originally Posted by Tiaexz:
I believe the Noah story was influenced by the Babylon's flood myth, Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla might be able to shed more information on that as a History scholar and a Christian, he might have looked for Historical facts to match the myths to reality. I remember there at least being a TV show which discussed a big flooding which might have seemed "global" but was far more local to a big regional area around the Dead Sea, perhaps, or another large land body of water.
The show I watched put for the thesis that the flood story came to the Israelites through Babylon. Who themselves heard it from the Sumerians. And that "Noah" was the King of Ur. Who washed out to sea on his trade barge with his family by a catastrophic flood of the Euphrates. And that he ended up somewhere in the Persian Gulf called Dilmum (they theorized that it might be Bahrain).I believe the Noah story was influenced by the Babylon's flood myth, Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla might be able to shed more information on that as a History scholar and a Christian, he might have looked for Historical facts to match the myths to reality. I remember there at least being a TV show which discussed a big flooding which might have seemed "global" but was far more local to a big regional area around the Dead Sea, perhaps, or another large land body of water.
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla:
No we don't differ
That, sir, is the entire By-Our-Lady point.
I said you think your beliefs are right, not that you are utterly wedded to them.
Of course because I'm a Christian you probably suppose I don't know what "thinking" means.
I thought the very essence of faith was not to doubt and question?No we don't differ
That, sir, is the entire By-Our-Lady point.
I said you think your beliefs are right, not that you are utterly wedded to them.
Of course because I'm a Christian you probably suppose I don't know what "thinking" means.
Originally Posted by Idaho:
I thought the very essence of faith was not to doubt and question?
No, Faith is believing something despite a lack of definative proof - to doubt and question is human.I thought the very essence of faith was not to doubt and question?
"My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?"
Rowan Williams said there was a "certain generation" that did not know what religion was actually about, funilly enough I immidiately thought of you.
Originally Posted by :
God doesn't care about it, just that we do good works and live good lives
False, salvation only comes through the acceptance of Christ. Christians are called upon to do more but there is only one way to get the prize at the end.God doesn't care about it, just that we do good works and live good lives
Originally Posted by Strike For The South:
False, salvation only comes through the acceptance of Christ. Christians are called upon to do more but there is only one way to get the prize at the end.
But you don't believe in God any more, do you?False, salvation only comes through the acceptance of Christ. Christians are called upon to do more but there is only one way to get the prize at the end.
So you obviously didn't buy into that.
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla:
But you don't believe in God any more, do you?
So you obviously didn't buy into that.
Once Saved Always Saved/Perseverance of the Saints?But you don't believe in God any more, do you?
So you obviously didn't buy into that.
PVC the Calvinist?
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla:
But you don't believe in God any more, do you?
So you obviously didn't buy into that.
But you don't believe in God any more, do you?
So you obviously didn't buy into that.
I think their is always a posibilty that people only believe due to fear.
The thought is that Jesus is who he says he is and his veiws should be heeded
But most people only beilive due to threat of punishment
Originally Posted by Rhyfhylwyr:
Once Saved Always Saved/Perseverance of the Saints?
PVC the Calvinist?
Any more of that and you'll meet PVC-in-Jerusalem-circa-1092 AD.Once Saved Always Saved/Perseverance of the Saints?
PVC the Calvinist?
Originally Posted by Strike For The South:
I think their is always a posibilty that people only believe due to fear.
The thought is that Jesus is who he says he is and his veiws should be heeded
But most people only beilive due to threat of punishment
No, I don't think so. People can be cowed into outward observance by fear - but that isn't the same as faith or even belief.I think their is always a posibilty that people only believe due to fear.
The thought is that Jesus is who he says he is and his veiws should be heeded
But most people only beilive due to threat of punishment
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO