RIP Philo

Dog receives communion.

Answer: No.
Permalink SaveTheHubble 
July 22nd, 2010 10:20am
Why not?
Permalink Aaron 
July 22nd, 2010 10:22am
Depends on the church why not, but I think they'd almost all say no for one reason or another, except for the Unitarians, but this article is about Anglicans (aka Episcopalians in the US, I think).

1.  Communion is to commemorate Jesus' sacrifice for our sins.  "Our", meaning "We", meaning Humans.  Thus a dog does not apply -- Jesus sacrifice wasn't FOR a dog's sins.

2.  Communion is for those who've accepted Jesus' sacrifice for their sins.  Thus a dog does not apply -- he hasn't accepted Jesus sacrifice.

3.  Communion is for those who've accepted Jesus' sacrifice to save their souls.  Dogs don't have souls, therefore does not apply.

4.  Only beings with freedom of choice CAN sin.  Thus dogs don't apply -- it's not possible for them to sin.

5.  "Taking Communion Lightly" is in itself a sin.  Giving it to an animal is "taking it lightly", thus a sin.

It depends on who you ask, and what their view of Communion and the spirituality of dogs is, but I'm pretty sure almost ALL of them would conclude it's really not cool, if not completely forbidden, if not absolutely anti-Christian to do so.

Shoot, there's some churches won't give Communion to you unless you've been Baptised IN THAT CHURCH.
Permalink SaveTheHubble 
July 22nd, 2010 10:31am
Besides, all dogs go to heaven anyway, so it's pointless.
Permalink Aaron 
July 22nd, 2010 10:37am
Good point.
Permalink SaveTheHubble 
July 22nd, 2010 10:42am
That just sounds incredibly insulting.
Permalink not CC 
July 22nd, 2010 10:49am
Pronoun trouble -- what does your "That" refer to?

Are you saying "giving communion to a dog" is insulting?  Or are you saying "objecting to giving communion to a dog" is insulting?

Your sentence can be read either way.  You might want to be more careful about that.
Permalink SaveTheHubble 
July 22nd, 2010 10:55am
My dogs have souls.  I'm not sure if you do.
Permalink muppet 
July 22nd, 2010 11:03am
So there's the spirituality half.  Now, would you give your dog Communion?  If so, why, and if not, why not?
Permalink SaveTheHubble 
July 22nd, 2010 11:05am
Well no, I think Communion is an invention of the church and not necessarily of God.
Permalink muppet 
July 22nd, 2010 11:08am
Sorry. It's incredibly insulting for a person to offer a dog communion, in public.
Permalink not CC 
July 22nd, 2010 11:09am
I might do it just for that reason.
Permalink muppet 
July 22nd, 2010 11:10am
BTW, the Hebrew Bible holds that dogs have souls.
Permalink not CC 
July 22nd, 2010 11:10am
The opinion I gave above was a sampling of what Christians of various sorts might say.

Personally, I haven't known a dog well enough to conclude one way or the other if they have souls -- I wouldn't object to somebody concluding they do.

There's a classic Zen koan -- "Does a dog have a Buddha nature?"  -- to which the answer is "Mu".

"
Has a dog Buddha-nature?
This is the most serious question of all.
If you say yes or no,
You lose your own Buddha-nature.
"
Permalink SaveTheHubble 
July 22nd, 2010 11:11am
Ah, so muppet believes that his dogs DO have souls, BUT that Communion is an invention of the church, and so would not give his dogs communion.

So, in typical muppet fashion, he confirms the point of the article, while violently disagreeing that this is the case.

And he'd be willing to GIVE communion to his dogs just to make this point.

See, this is why we need muppet.  Nothing's simple with him.  I appreciate that sort of thing.  Stimulates conversation.
Permalink SaveTheHubble 
July 22nd, 2010 11:14am
Oh, a better translation of "Mu" above is:
"your question cannot be answered, because it depends on incorrect assumptions".
Permalink SaveTheHubble 
July 22nd, 2010 11:24am
Like a typical church. It sounds like one single person got worked up enough to pitch a fit over it.

Maybe it offended a very small percentage of people.

Most were just amused and maybe even uplifted.

But fuck all that... Jesus would be mad about it because he's a very serious dude.

I understand my personal sense of reverence is skewed and all, but I think Jesus also had something against sodomy so it would be nice if some people removed the sticks from their asses.
Permalink JoC 
July 22nd, 2010 11:59am
Was the dog baptized? That's the main issue I see.
Permalink Bored Bystander 
July 22nd, 2010 12:17pm
+1 Bored.  Clever.
Permalink SaveTheHubble 
July 22nd, 2010 12:47pm
Yikes.

Well it probably depends on the beliefs of the church. To catholics and eastern orthodox it's not a wafer, it is transmogrified into the ACTUAL human flesh of Christ through a mystical process called transubstantiation.

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

Since Christ commanded "This [bread] IS my body, take and eat." and not "represents my body as a symbol", then that's what they do. And it was given as a sacrifice for original sin. Dogs don't have original sin, nor do they understand catholic theology. Non-catholics are not allowed to receive communion because they don't have the same understanding and therefore would not be able to receive the communion, which is not bread at all anymore but raw human flesh, with the appropriate reverence.

An extreme result of that would be to call it a wafer and feed it to dogs.

Here's the Protestant reinterpretation of this issue.

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

In this one, it's still bread, but also contains the essential substance of Christ. Episcopalians believe this, and it's still not OK to feed to dogs.

Luther himself has yet another theory:

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

I don't see what the difference is between Luther's take and Consubstantiation, but Luther explained it like this:

> ... we do not make Christ's body out of the bread ... Nor do we say that his body comes into existence out of the bread. We say that his body, which long ago was made and came into existence, is present when we say, "This is my body." For Christ commands us to say not, "Let this become my body," or, "Make my body there," but, "This is my body."
Permalink CC 
July 22nd, 2010 1:10pm
I guess Luther is saying that the bread which is destined to become the eucharist, even when it was wheat, even when it was a seed in the ground, was and has been since the beginning the body of christ. He takes the literal interpretation of the statement farther than the catholics. Catholics believe there is a conversion of the bread into flesh during a special latin prayer said by the priest, and thus they must infer that such a conversion happened at the Last Supper, even though it was not mentioned. Luther says if it wasn't mentioned it didn't happen and so when Christ says "this is my body" he means it has always been his body, ever since the beginning of the universe.

Well Luther's interpretation is a bit crazy, but so are the rest of them.

Despite this, people should respect others beliefs. Including the episcopalian priest should respect the beliefs of her church and congregants even though she obviously doesn't follow them herself. If she wants to feed bread to dogs and denies the existence of communion, let her start her own church.
Permalink CC 
July 22nd, 2010 1:14pm
Let's say an old widow Emily has her husband's ashes in an urn and she talks to them every day, believing her husband can hear her.

Then her niece Sue comes over and throws them out.

"Have you seen Bob?" Emily asks Sue.

Sue says, "They are just ashes. I threw them out."


Maybe Sue is right, they are just ashes, but Emily has a right to them and to believe they are Bob and that they should be treated with the proper respect.
Permalink CC 
July 22nd, 2010 1:17pm
I always took "do this, in remembrance of me", to mean the entire act of communion was to commemorate Jesus' sacrifice -- literal 'magical' transubstantiation into the body and blood of Christ wasn't necessary, they were SYMBOLS.

But the Catholic Church was historically into creating "Sacraments" with Eternal Consequences as a way of keeping the body of believers in line.  If you didn't get Baptised, you were damned and going to hell.  If you didn't do Communion, you'd die in your sins and be damned and going to hell.  Even Last Rites were to get forgiveness for your most recent sins, otherwise you could die in your sins and go to hell.

Being the only conduit to the ACTUAL body and blood of Christ would have added a lot of emphasis to the act of Communion.
Permalink SaveTheHubble 
July 22nd, 2010 1:21pm
"BTW, the Hebrew Bible holds that dogs have souls."

Hebrew has several words that are translated as soul in english.

Plants have a life force that rocks don't. Animals are a level up, with a life force that animals don't have. Only man has the breath of God, which infuses him with something of God's nature. Animals don't have this.

As far as being a soul that is separate from the body and which exists after death, that's not in the Hebrew Bible at all. The concept of an immortal soul apart from the body was a pagan belief of the Greeks that was adopted by some Hebrews in the first century AD. It's not part of traditional ancient Judaism.
Permalink CC 
July 22nd, 2010 1:34pm
Interesting.  I believe it was also from the Greeks that we got the idea that the flesh was inherently corrupt, whereas the spirit could be pure.

So an immortal pure spirit freed from the flesh would be an ideal of theirs.  This led to a heresy, where they claimed that Christ was pure spirit with only a seeming body.

Instead, current Christian thought holds that Christ was fully human AND fully divine, and lets the contradiction and paradox of that statement be something the believer has to work out as part of his Christian walk.

I always preferred the Judaic view of "wholeness" being a perfectly integrated balance between flesh and spirit.  The Greek ideal of perfect separation of the two promotes an unrealistic and even inhuman goal, to me.
Permalink SaveTheHubble 
July 22nd, 2010 1:45pm
"Plants have a life force that rocks don't. Animals are a level up, with a life force that animals don't have. Only man has the breath of God, which infuses him with something of God's nature. Animals don't have this."

I'm impressed. You're absolutely correct. However, in the story of the Ark, 3 species are mentioned as having sinned in the Ark (i.e., they had sex, sex was strictly forbidden): humans, ravens and dogs. One cannot sin without a soul.

"As far as being a soul that is separate from the body and which exists after death, that's not in the Hebrew Bible at all. The concept of an immortal soul apart from the body was a pagan belief of the Greeks that was adopted by some Hebrews in the first century AD. It's not part of traditional ancient Judaism."

No, there are many references to life after death in the Hebrew Bible. Whenever someone is "gathered to their people" means that their soul moved to Gan Eden; sins where someone is "cut off from their people" means that their soul doesn't.
Permalink not CC 
July 22nd, 2010 2:26pm
Yes, that's a very good point that even Jesus wasn't allowed to be a spirit, as some of the gnostics thought.

It's interesting that many Christians think that after death they are going to go to heaven, and become spirit angels with wings. Angels are completely different from humans biblically. Angels are like God's military. They spy on humans, interact with them, and execute God's wrath when necessary. Although they can walk among men, they are also powerful enough to destroy an entire city with a single blow.

In the Tanakh (old testament), the issue of an afterlife is dealt with is the belief in a bodily resurrection. The dust from the graves reassembles into bones and flesh. Before then, people are simply in the grave, sleeping but not dreaming.

In Orthodox Judaism, belief in the physical resurrection is one of the 13 things you are absolutely required to believe, at least according to Maimonides' 13 principles of faith, which were set down in the 12th century. It's #13, "I believe with perfect faith that there will be a revival of the dead at the time when it shall please the Creator, Blessed be His name, and His mention shall be exalted for ever and ever."

As to where your memories are held while you are sleeping, I am not sure. I've heard some talk that if you are good God remembers you. Maybe that is part of how the resurrection happens, people get their essence re-breathed back to the body after their atoms are reassembled into a body.
Permalink CC 
July 22nd, 2010 2:31pm
I've not seen it explained that it was a sin that the raven didn't return but the dove did.

I've not seen any mention of dogs in conjunction with the ark, and can't find a reference googling just now. Do you have more details about what work this is taken from?
Permalink CC 
July 22nd, 2010 2:35pm
Rather than look it all up myself, here's a reference on how belief in the soul entered judaism.

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=118&letter=I

> The belief in the immortality of the soul came to the Jews from contact with Greek thought and chiefly through the philosophy of Plato, its principal exponent, who was led to it through Orphic and Eleusinian mysteries in which Babylonian and Egyptian views were strangely blended, as the Semitic name "Minos" (comp. "Minotaurus"), and the Egyptian "Rhadamanthys" ("Ra of Ament," "Ruler of Hades"; Naville, "La Litanie du Soleil," 1875, p. 13) with others, sufficiently prove. Consult especially E. Rhode, "Psyche: Seelencult und Unsterblichkeitsglaube der Griechen," 1894, pp. 555 et seq. A blessed immortality awaiting the spirit while the bones rest in the earth is mentioned in Jubilees xxiii. 31 and Enoch iii. 4. Immortality, the "dwelling near God's throne" "free from the load of the body," is "the fruit of righteousness," says the Book of Wisdom (i. 15; iii. 4; iv. 1; viii. 13, 17; xv. 3). In IV Maccabees, also (ix. 8, 22; x. 15; xiv. 5; xv. 2; xvi. 13; xvii. 5, 18), immortality of the soul is represented as life with God in heaven, and declared to be the reward for righteousness and martyrdom. The souls of the righteous are transplanted into heaven and transformed into holy souls (ib. xiii. 17, xviii. 23). According to Philo, the soul exists before it enters the body, a prison-house from which death liberates it; to return to God and live in constant contemplation of Him is man's highest destiny (Philo, "De Opificio Mundi," §§ 46, 47; idem, "De Allegoriis Legum," i., §§ 33, 65; iii., §§ 14, 37; idem, "Quis Rerum Divinarum Hæres Sit," §§ 38, 57).

> It is not quite clear whether the Sadducees, in denying resurrection (Josephus, "Ant." xviii. 1, § 4; idem, "B. J." ii. 12; Mark xii. 18; Acts xxiii. 8; comp. Sanh. 90b), denied also the immortality of the soul (see Ab. R. N., recension B. x. [ed. Schechter, 26]). Certain it is that the Pharisaic belief in resurrection had not even a name for the immortality of the soul. For them, man was made for two worlds, the world that now is, and the world to come, where life does not end in death (Gen. R. viii.; Yer. Meg. ii. 73b; M. Ḳ. iii. 83b, where the words , Ps. xlviii. 15, are translated by Aquilas as if they read: , "no death," ἀθανασία).
Permalink CC 
July 22nd, 2010 2:38pm
Genesis 7 does not mention sin -- did I miss something?
Permalink SaveTheHubble 
July 22nd, 2010 2:40pm
The Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin, page 108b in the standard Vilna Edition.
Permalink not CC 
July 22nd, 2010 2:43pm
In Tanakh, angels (there are many different types) are functions.

Also, souls are spoken of being active in Gan Eden; however, that's from Medrashim.
Permalink not CC 
July 22nd, 2010 2:47pm
Sanhedrin 108b: ""Our Rabbis taught: Three copulated in the ark, and they were all punished — the dog, the raven, and Ham." -- and then goes on to detail their punishments.

But again, it doesn't mention "sin".
Permalink SaveTheHubble 
July 22nd, 2010 2:53pm
So they did wrong, and were punished for it.  That doesn't imply the dog or the raven "sinned", so it doesn't imply third-hand that they have souls.
Permalink SaveTheHubble 
July 22nd, 2010 2:54pm
I don't have my reference material with me now. However, I do believe Rashi in his commentary on Noach learns out that "You, your sons, your wife" means that sex was prohibited during the time in the Ark.

Not 100% sure though, at this time.
Permalink not CC 
July 22nd, 2010 3:11pm
OK, thanks. Interesting that it is established that because of this, dogs are thought of more highly than gentiles.
Permalink CC 
July 22nd, 2010 4:01pm
It says that in Genesis 6:12, "For all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth." meant "This teaches that they caused beasts and animals, animals and beasts, to copulate"

A pretty strange interpretation of Genesis 6:12. Do modern rabbis agree with this one? God sent the flood to kill mankind because animals were having sex?
Permalink CC 
July 22nd, 2010 4:05pm
Hm, for copulating on the ark Ham was punished by making his descendants, by Cush, negros.

So God really does intend being black as a curse, according to the Talmud.
Permalink CC 
July 22nd, 2010 4:08pm
Hey not CC, do you have a printed set of the Talmud? If you do, is it in Hebrew, English or both?

I've seen this set in the bookcases of Jewish friends, it takes up a whole shelf. Is it worth it to have? Do you read it every day? Have you read the whole thing?
Permalink CC 
July 22nd, 2010 4:14pm
The tale of the flood is much older than the thalmud.

It is already part of the Epic of Gilgamesh.

Noah is made immortal after the adventure, and lived on the coast of the Persian Gulf, where Gilgamesh is visiting him in order to ask him about immortality.

It is evidently a story the Jews picked up while they were banished in Babylon, where the story was part of the literary tradition. Like most of the Genesis stories.
Permalink Attila 
July 22nd, 2010 4:38pm
"OK, thanks. Interesting that it is established that because of this, dogs are thought of more highly than gentiles."

Um, no, not at all.
Permalink not CC 
July 22nd, 2010 4:44pm
"It says that in Genesis 6:12, 'For all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth." meant "This teaches that they caused beasts and animals, animals and beasts, to copulate'

A pretty strange interpretation of Genesis 6:12. Do modern rabbis agree with this one? God sent the flood to kill mankind because animals were having sex?"

This is a better translation:

http://bible.ort.org/books/pentd2.asp?ACTION=displaypage&BOOK=1&CHAPTER=6

A full answer would take a book, but basically, idolatry, thievery, bribery were the main cause. I believe (but am not sure) that bestiality was a big part, too.
Permalink not CC 
July 22nd, 2010 4:48pm
"Hm, for copulating on the ark Ham was punished by making his descendants, by Cush, negros.

So God really does intend being black as a curse, according to the Talmud."

Well, King David and his progeny are descendants of Cham, through Ruth.
Permalink not CC 
July 22nd, 2010 4:49pm
"Hey not CC, do you have a printed set of the Talmud? If you do, is it in Hebrew, English or both?"

The Jerusalem Talmud is in Hebrew. It's too hard for me now.

The Babylonian Talmud is in Hebrew, but mostly Aramaic. English wasn't around at the time.

In addition, they are written in a very dense shorthand.

"I've seen this set in the bookcases of Jewish friends, it takes up a whole shelf. Is it worth it to have? Do you read it every day? Have you read the whole thing?"

I myself have a few masekhtas. I learn with the Artscroll, which is basically the Talmud with an English speaking Rabbi inside.
Permalink not CC 
July 22nd, 2010 4:53pm
"It is evidently a story the Jews picked up while they were banished in Babylon, where the story was part of the literary tradition. Like most of the Genesis stories."

Jews hold that the Torah was known from the time of Adam and that the Babylonians copied the Torah to make their stories.
Permalink not CC 
July 22nd, 2010 4:54pm
> Jews hold that the Torah was known from the time of Adam and that the Babylonians copied the Torah to make their stories.

Well, every religion has its own lies.
Permalink Attila 
July 22nd, 2010 6:47pm
The reason why you believe the Babylonians over the Jews is because the Babylonians scratched it into some rocks that Europeans found thousands of years later.

There's a proven bias towards printed material.

Believe what you want. I report, you decide.
Permalink not CC 
July 22nd, 2010 7:25pm
If it wasn't clear, the interpretation "This teaches that they caused beasts and animals, animals and beasts, to copulate" is from your referenced Babylonian Talmud section, it's attributed to R[abbi] Johanan, seems there is more than one Johanan, but probably ben Nappaha.

Translation of Genesis there isn't so important since I'm working from the Talmudic interpretation.
Permalink CC 
July 22nd, 2010 8:58pm
What's masekhtas? Volumes? This thread in CoT is the only occurrence of that word in the whole internet.

"Art Scrolls"

OK, "Mesorah has a line of Mishnah translations and commentaries, and a line of Babylonian Talmud translations and commentaries, The Schottenstein Edition of The Talmud Bavli ("Babylonian Talmud"). The set of Talmud was completed in late 2004, giving a 73 volume English edition of the entire Talmud"

So you are collecting these one at a time? Don't have to buy all at once? These are the ones to get? How do you figure which order to get them in?
Permalink CC 
July 22nd, 2010 9:01pm
OK, so these are about $50 a volume in the Schottenstein Edition and it's 73 volumes, so $3650 and a big bookcase are needed.
Permalink CC 
July 22nd, 2010 9:06pm
"English wasn't around at the time."

Do you think I don't know that? I am asking if you have a copy and if it is in English, Hebrew or both. OBVIOUSLY if in English it would be a translation. The versions I have looked through at friend's houses are in pure Hebrew, or I guess some in Aramaic then. I can't read it. I was asking you if you were reading an english version.
Permalink CC 
July 22nd, 2010 9:09pm
"If it wasn't clear, the interpretation 'This teaches that they caused beasts and animals, animals and beasts, to copulate' is from your referenced Babylonian Talmud section, it's attributed to R[abbi] Johanan, seems there is more than one Johanan, but probably ben Nappaha."

Whenever you see a J, replace it with a Y. It's the letter yod, which is transliterated with a J in German.

It's really R'Yochanan.

I didn't get a chance to look up Sanhedrin tonight, but I have the Rashi at home, and he says that bestiality was rampant among all species, not just humans.

"What's masekhtas? Volumes? This thread in CoT is the only occurrence of that word in the whole internet."

The Talmud is divided into 6 Sedarim (Orders, like the Passover service). Those are broken down into masekhtas (masechtas), which are broken down into p'rakim, which are broken down into p'sukim (sentences).

"OK, "Mesorah has a line of Mishnah translations and commentaries, and a line of Babylonian Talmud translations and commentaries, The Schottenstein Edition of The Talmud Bavli ('Babylonian Talmud'). The set of Talmud was completed in late 2004, giving a 73 volume English edition of the entire Talmud'

So you are collecting these one at a time? Don't have to buy all at once? These are the ones to get? How do you figure which order to get them in?

OK, so these are about $50 a volume in the Schottenstein Edition and it's 73 volumes, so $3650 and a big bookcase are needed."

Some have been gifts, some I have bought with my own money, some I read when I'm at shul. I don't own very many, but I do have access to them all.

I get the ones I'm learning. I'm currently learning Makkos with a study buddy, Bava Basra on the bus home, and Shabbos (Mishnayos only) on Shabbos.

They do have paperback and smaller versions available, if you can read small print. They are a lot cheaper.

"English wasn't around at the time."

I was yanking your chain. Is that OK?

The Artscroll versions have the Talmud as laid out by the Vilna Shas, which has become the standard layout, on one side, and on the other, they have the fully vocalized Hebrew and Aramaic and an English translation++. The Talmud is written in an extremely concise shorthand; it was designed to require a teacher. You can't learn it by yourself.

If you're curious, this link is very good:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talmud
Permalink not CC 
July 22nd, 2010 9:39pm
OK, thanks.

It sounds like what this has come down to is you say that dogs have souls because they sinned on the ark, and your reference is the Talmud, but no one can understand the Talmud unless they study it for a lifetime, in the original Hebrew and Aramaic, with a highly trained expert. It is not sufficient to merely read the text to find the correct interpretation. And of course only an orthodox jewish person is going to have access to the special training by an expert master, who is of course another orthodox jew who has studied for a lifetime from his master.

That means it boils down to taking the word of a religious authority for the truth because the truth is simply not available to commoners.

Why not believe the Pope instead? Or the Dalai Lama? As long as we are relying on secret knowledge that can not be understood by the riff raff and must simply be accepted on the Authority of the Learned Masters.
Permalink CC 
July 23rd, 2010 11:20am
Also... the Talmud claim here is that it is copulation that caused God to send the flood to kill everyone, and that the dog raven and Ham sinned by committing this on the ark. You're saying that that really meant beastiality, which is an animal having sex with other than its own species. I can see Ham fucking the dog, but who did the raven fuck?
Permalink CC 
July 23rd, 2010 11:25am
Claim: If God punishes an animal then the animal must have a soul because only souls can sin and God only punishes those with a soul.

Conclusion: Snakes have souls because God punished the serpent.
Permalink CC 
July 23rd, 2010 11:30am
"It sounds like what this has come down to is you say that dogs have souls because they sinned on the ark, and your reference is the Talmud, but no one can understand the Talmud unless they study it for a lifetime, in the original Hebrew and Aramaic, with a highly trained expert. It is not sufficient to merely read the text to find the correct interpretation. And of course only an orthodox Jewish person is going to have access to the special training by an expert master, who is of course another orthodox Jew who has studied for a lifetime from his master."

Yup, you've got it. It's extremely difficult. Why did you expect otherwise?

"That means it boils down to taking the word of a religious authority for the truth because the truth is simply not available to commoners."

I'm a commoner. There's nothing special about me. The whole point is that it is available to all, you've got to put the time in. I've just put in the time and the effort, is all.

You'd have to have a kosher conversion first, because real Torah study, like Shabbos, is reserved for Jews. I know men who converted specifically to study Torah.

"Why not believe the Pope instead? Or the Dalai Lama? As long as we are relying on secret knowledge that can not be understood by the riff raff and must simply be accepted on the Authority of the Learned Masters."

Believe whatever and whoever you want. I don't care, I'm not interested in converting anyone.
Permalink ASDF 
July 23rd, 2010 11:59am

This topic is archived. No further replies will be accepted.

Other topics: July, 2010 Other topics: July, 2010 Recent topics Recent topics