Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Avoid Intellectual Suicide: Do Not Interpret the Bible Like a Fundamentalist
Vox Nova ^ | May 14,2 010 | Henry Karlson

Posted on 05/14/2010 11:03:45 AM PDT by NYer

Holy Scripture, despite all appearances, will not always be easy to interpret. We can be lulled into thinking our “common sense” and “by the letter” interpretation of a text is what God intends us to get out of it. However, if this is the case, there would be little to no debates about its meaning; there would be little confusion as to its purpose and how it applies to us today. St. Peter would not have needed to tell us that no prophecy of Scripture is to be interpreted privately, because all interpretations of Scripture would end up the same. We need to understand and heed the warning of St. Mark the Ascetic: “Do not let your heart become conceited about your interpretations of Scripture, lest your intellect fall afoul for the spirit of blasphemy.” [1] Why would he be warning us of this? Because Scripture, in its most external, simplistic level, could easily lead people to a perverted understanding of God and the Christian faith.

For an interpretation of Scripture to be acceptable (which does not mean it is necessarily correct), it must at least conform to the basic dogmatic teachings of the Church. If God is love, this must be manifest from one’s understanding of Scripture. If one’s interpretation of a text would lead to God doing or commanding something which runs against the law of love, the law by which God himself acts, then one has indeed committed blasphemy. If one really believes God commands some intrinsic evil, such as genocide, one has abandoned the God who is love, and has at least committed unintentional blasphemy by something evil about him. One cannot get out of this by saying, “whatever God wills, is now good,” or that “the very nature of right and wrong has changed through time,” because both would contradict not only the fundamental character of love, but also the fact God has provided us a positive means by which we can understand something of him via analogy; we know what love is, we know what the good is, and therefore we know something about God when we see he is love or that he is good. While we must understand our concepts are limited in relation to God, it is not because God is less than our concepts, but more and their foundation. Thus, Pope Benedict wisely says:

In contrast with the so-called intellectualism of Augustine and Thomas, there arose with Duns Scotus a voluntarism which, in its later developments, led to the claim that we can only know God’s voluntas ordinata. Beyond this is the realm of God’s freedom, in virtue of which he could have done the opposite of everything he has actually done. This gives rise to positions which clearly approach those of Ibn Hazm and might even lead to the image of a capricious God, who is not even bound to truth and goodness. God’s transcendence and otherness are so exalted that our reason, our sense of the true and good, are no longer an authentic mirror of God, whose deepest possibilities remain eternally unattainable and hidden behind his actual decisions. As opposed to this, the faith of the Church has always insisted that between God and us, between his eternal Creator Spirit and our created reason there exists a real analogy, in which – as the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215 stated – unlikeness remains infinitely greater than likeness, yet not to the point of abolishing analogy and its language. God does not become more divine when we push him away from us in a sheer, impenetrable voluntarism; rather, the truly divine God is the God who has revealed himself as logos and, as logos, has acted and continues to act lovingly on our behalf. Certainly, love, as Saint Paul says, “transcends” knowledge and is thereby capable of perceiving more than thought alone (cf. Eph 3:19); nonetheless it continues to be love of the God who is Logos. Consequently, Christian worship is, again to quote Paul – “λογικη λατρεία”, worship in harmony with the eternal Word and with our reason (cf. Rom 12:1).[2]

Christianity affirms both the transcendence and immanence of God. The second allows us to say something positive and true about God, while the first reminds us that positive assertions are limited, that they are at best analogous pointers to something beyond the statements themselves. Our teachings truly say something about God. They must be used as the guideline by which we read Scripture. Moreover, as the Church makes abundantly clear, Scripture is itself an ecclesial document, to be interpreted in and by the Church. It must be interpreted in such a way that dogmatic teachings about God (such as his unchanging goodness) are in accord with our understanding of Scriptural text. If reason suggests a disconnect between an interpretation and dogma, we must follow dogma and dismiss the interpretation. Richard Gaillardetz explains this well:

The apostolic witness would be preserved both in the canonical Scriptures and in the ongoing paradosis or handing on of the apostolic faith in the Christian community. The unity of Scripture and tradition is grounded then in the one word whose presence in human history comes to its unsurpassable actualization in Jesus Christ. Scripture and tradition must be viewed as interrelated witnesses to that word. Furthermore, neither Scripture nor tradition can be separated from the Church. The unity of Scripture, tradition and the living communion of the Church itself is fundamental.[3]

Revelation, therefore, is centered upon Jesus Christ – and through Christ, the whole of the Holy Trinity:

The principal purpose to which the plan of the old covenant was directed was to prepare for the coming of Christ, the redeemer of all and of the messianic kingdom, to announce this coming by prophecy (see Luke 24:44; John 5:39; 1 Peter 1:10), and to indicate its meaning through various types (see 1 Cor. 10:12). Now the books of the Old Testament, in accordance with the state of mankind before the time of salvation established by Christ, reveal to all men the knowledge of God and of man and the ways in which God, just and merciful, deals with men. These books, though they also contain some things which are incomplete and temporary, nevertheless show us true divine pedagogy.[4]

If the vision of God that one gets out of Scripture is not one which reveals his justice and mercy, the reader of the text has missed something about the text itself. Perhaps the mistake lies in their interpretive scheme, where they assume the text follows the contours of modern historical writings. This is not the case; indeed Christians since the beginning of Church history have understood a very different scheme for the Biblical text: one which presents a kind of history but uses that history to present a deeper, more fundamental understanding of the world. Texts which are seen as impossible, if interpreted as history, nonetheless must be accepted, not because they are historical, but because they reveal something theological. St. Neilos the Ascetic, for example, takes 2 Samuel 4:5-8[5] as being historically absurd. This, he thinks, should be obvious. But if this is the case, does it make the text meaningless? By no means:

It is clear that this story in Scripture should not be taken literally. For how could a king have a woman as door-keeper, when he ought properly to be guarded by a troop of soldiers, and to have round him a large body of attendants? Or how could he be so poor as to use her to winnow the wheat? But improbable details are often included in a story because of the deeper truths they signify. Thus the intellect in each of us resides within like a king, while the reason acts as door-keeper of the senses. When the reason occupies itself with bodily things – and to winnow wheat is something bodily – he enemy without difficulty slips past unnoticed and slays the intellect.[6]

This scheme was in accord with what Origen taught. Indeed, he believed that the writers were inspired to put in statements which were absurd so as to remind us not to take the text so simply, but to look for the deeper, spiritual nourishment we can get from them, even for those texts which also have a real historical basis:

But since, if the usefulness of the legislation, and the sequence and beauty of the history, were universally evident of itself, we should not believe that any other thing could be understood in the Scriptures save what was obvious, the word of God has arranged that certain stumbling-blocks, as it were, and offenses, and impossibili­ties, should be introduced into the midst of the law and the history, in order that we may not, through being drawn away in all directions by the merely attractive na­ture of the language, either altogether fall away from the (true) doctrines, as learn­ing nothing worthy of God, or, by not departing from the letter, come to the knowledge of nothing more divine. And this also we must know, that the principal aim being to announce the spiritual connection in those things that are done, and that ought to be done, where the Word found that things done according to the history could be adapted to these mystical senses, He made use of them, concealing from the multitude the deeper meaning; but where, in the narrative of the develop­ment of super-sensual things, there did not follow the performance of those certain events, which was already indicated by the mystical meaning, the Scripture interwove in the history (the account of) some event that did not take place, sometimes what could not have happened; sometimes what could, but did not. And sometimes a few words are interpolated which are not true in their literal acceptation, and sometimes a larger number.[7]

Scripture, of course, was written by various people. While they were inspired by God to write what they wrote, and God inspired the Church to collect the texts it did, in the form it did, we must also understand that the people behind the texts are not mere puppets being forced by God to write as they did. Thus, when patristic authors, or the Church, asserts God as the author of the text, we must not take this as fundamentalists do, but rather recognize that God works with authors based upon their ability and through their cooperation with his intended purposes: “The fathers look upon the Bible above all as the Book of God, the single work of a single author. This does not mean, however, that they reduce the human authors to nothing more than passive instruments; they are quite capable, also, of according to a particular book its own specific purpose.”[8] Indeed, God can inspires people to reveal something about him without their knowing of it, or knowing the meaning behind their words, as St Edith Stein masterfully explains:

Must the inspired person who is the instrument of a divine revelation be aware of the fact? Must he know that he has been illuminated, must he himself have received a revelation? We may well imagine cases where none of this is true. It is not impossible that someone utter a revelation without realizing it, without having received a revelation from God, without even being aware that he is speaking in God’s name or feeling supported by God’s Spirit in what he says and how he says it. He may think he is only voicing his own insight and in the words of his choosing.

Thus Caiphas says in the Sanhedrin : ‘You know nothing and do not consider that it is better for you that one man die for the people and not the whole people parish.’ And John adds: ‘but his he said not of himself but being high priest that year he prophesied that Jesus would die for the people…’ Hence Caiphas spoke in God’s name and followed divine instructions without either knowing it or wishing to do so. John, however, knows that Caiphas was speaking God’s word and perhaps that he was himself enlightened by God as he wrote this. Does John know the prophetic meaning of Caiphas’ words through a revelation accorded him? Quite possibly. But it may also be that the fulfillment of those words in the death of Jesus and John’s view of the overall work of salvation made him realize their prophetic nature.[9]

Now this is not to say it is the norm, nor common, but, as we see, a person inspired by God does not have to understand the meaning of their words, nor that they are actually saying something that will be collected together as being inspired by God. The intention of God as the inspired author of Scripture does not have to be one with the intended meaning of the human author, and indeed, could be one which runs contrary to what such a human might have thought (as, for example, we find in the case of Jonah).

Thus, it is important to discuss inspiration, but as the Pontifical Biblical Commission warns us, we must not follow the simplistic interpretation found within fundamentalism:

Fundamentalism is right to insist on the divine inspiration of the Bible, the inerrancy of the word of God and other biblical truths included in its five fundamental points. But its way of presenting these truths is rooted in an ideology which is not biblical, whatever the proponents of this approach might say. For it demands an unshakable adherence to rigid doctrinal points of view and imposes, as the only source of teaching for Christian life and salvation, a reading of the Bible which rejects all questioning and any kind of critical research.[10]

And, it is especially when people take the Bible as history where this becomes the problem. “Fundamentalism also places undue stress upon the inerrancy of certain details in the biblical texts, especially in what concerns historical events or supposedly scientific truth.”[11] It creates a false, blasphemous view of God through its simplistic understanding of the text, and demand adherence to that simplistic view, with the explanation that if one denies this scheme, one must reject Scripture itself. There is no basis by which one can understand the deeper, spiritual value of revelation. And it is for this reason it ends up creating an evil-looking God, and promotes the acceptance of intrinsic evils such as racism or genocide as being good if and when God commanded them. “Fundamentalism likewise tends to adopt very narrow points of view. It accepts the literal reality of an ancient, out-of-date cosmology simply because it is found expressed in the Bible; this blocks any dialogue with a broader way of seeing the relationship between culture and faith. Its relying upon a non-critical reading of certain texts of the Bible serves to reinforce political ideas and social attitudes that are marked by prejudices—racism, for example—quite contrary to the Christian Gospel.”[12] While simple, it is this simplicity which leads to a letter that kills, because it requires a denial of reason when engaging the faith, and leading to “intellectual suicide”:

The fundamentalist approach is dangerous, for it is attractive to people who look to the Bible for ready answers to the problems of life. It can deceive these people, offering them interpretations that are pious but illusory, instead of telling them that the Bible does not necessarily contain an immediate answer to each and every problem. Without saying as much in so many words, fundamentalism actually invites people to a kind of intellectual suicide. It injects into life a false certitude, for it unwittingly confuses the divine substance of the biblical message with what are in fact its human limitations.[13]

No wonder St Mark the Ascetic warned us to be careful when we interpreted Scripture. He understood how people would confuse the human side of Scripture with its divine meaning, and how that would end up creating a false, humanly constructed, image of God. A God presented in the image of fallen humanity can only be a monster, the monster which we see proclaimed by fundamentalists the world over.

Footnotes

[1] Mark the Monk, “On the Spiritual Law” in Counsels on the Spiritual Life. Trans. Tim Vivian and Augustine Casiday (Crestwood, NY: St Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 2009), 93.

[2] Pope Benedict, Regensburg Lecture, Sept 12, 2006.

[3] Richard R. Gaillardetz, Teaching with Authority: A Theology of the Magisterium of the Church (Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press, 1997), 84.

[4] Dei Verbum 15 (Vatican Translation).

[5]“ Now the sons of Rimmon the Beerothite, Rechab and Baanah, set out, and about the heat of the day they came to the house of Ishbosheth, as he was taking his noonday rest. And behold, the doorkeeper of the house had been cleaning wheat, but she grew drowsy and slept; so Rechab and Baanah his brother slipped in. When they came into the house, as he lay on his bed in his bedchamber, they smote him, and slew him, and beheaded him. They took his head, and went by the way of the Arabah all night, and brought the head of Ishbosheth to David at Hebron. And they said to the king, ‘Here is the head of Ishbosheth, the son of Saul, your enemy, who sought your life; the LORD has avenged my lord the king this day on Saul and on his offspring’” (2 Sam 4:5-8 RSV).

[6] St Neilos the Ascetic, “Ascetic Discourse” in The Philokalia. Volume I. Trans. And ed. By G.E.H. Palmer, Philip Sherrard and Kallistos Ware (London: Faber and Faber, 1983), 210.

[7] Origen, “On First Principles” in ANF(4), 364.

[8] Pontifical Biblical Commission, The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church (March 18, 1994), III-B.2

[9] St Edith Stein, “Ways to know God” in Knowledge and Faith. Trans. Walter Redmond (Washington, DC: ICS Publications, 2000), 103.

[10] Pontifical Biblical Commission, The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church, I-F.

[11] Ibid.

[12] Ibid.

[13] Ibid.



TOPICS: Apologetics; Catholic; Evangelical Christian; History; Mainline Protestant; Theology
KEYWORDS: apologetics; bible; catholic; fundamentalist; religiousleft; religiousright; scripture; seminary
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 141-160161-180181-200 ... 2,221-2,227 next last
To: MarkBsnr
God is manifest in the flesh does not mean that Jesus is God, all by itself. God is manifest in all believers. Does that mean that we are all God?

Like I said, you guys have to alter and pervert the scripture to make it meaningful to you...God says He WAS manifest in the flesh, NOT IS...And then in the context, He goes on to say, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

So your religion says God is talking about you, eh???

If you believed what God said, you coudn't be a Catholic...

161 posted on 05/14/2010 7:51:01 PM PDT by Iscool (I don't understand all that I know...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 152 | View Replies]

To: boatbums
Agreed! I got to that part and knew the rest was just...blah, blah, blah, blah, blah!!! It IS awful convenient to proclaim only the One, True Church of Christ is authorized to say what Scripture says AND then to say, "Well! Whaddaya know...WE ARE THAT CHURCH!!!

I'm still waiting to hear why or how the Catholic Church wrote the book that condemns the Catholic Church...

162 posted on 05/14/2010 7:56:27 PM PDT by Iscool (I don't understand all that I know...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 160 | View Replies]

To: Iscool
Jesus said He wouldn't be with you after the end of the age...You don't believe it??? That's not the scripture's problem, it's yours...

Am I understanding you correctly? Are you saying that the Lord will not be with us after the end of the age? Where will he be?

163 posted on 05/14/2010 8:04:43 PM PDT by cothrige
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 154 | View Replies]

To: cothrige
Am I understanding you correctly? Are you saying that the Lord will not be with us after the end of the age? Where will he be?

That is the end of the 'church' age...The statment was spoken to Jews...

When the times of the Gentiles is fulfilled, the church will head to heaven for the wedding to the Groom...The Holy Spirit leaves the earth as well...Who's still here???

Unsaved Gentiles and unsaved Jews...They will have only the scripture and the two witnesses spoken of in the book of Revelation to spread God's word...They'll have 7 years to reject the mark of the beast and 'turn to God'...And then Jesus returns...

I would guess you won't believe that either but hey, God warned you when He said he would be with you til the end of the age...

164 posted on 05/14/2010 8:16:53 PM PDT by Iscool (I don't understand all that I know...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 163 | View Replies]

To: Iscool
Well, that is interesting I will grant. But, I still don't see your understanding, and let me take a moment and share why. I hope you will tell me how I am understanding this differently than you are.
Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, [even] unto the end of the world. Amen. (Matthew 28.20 AV)

Here is my problem. Who is he talking to? It seems to me that he is talking to believers here. He is obviously not promising the atheist or whatever that he will be with them. And, if he is talking to people of faith then why would he no longer be with them at the consummation of the world? If the church will head to heaven for the wedding to the Groom, as you have posited, then isn't it fair to ask if the Groom will still be with them? Even if I accept your interpretation I can't see how it changes the problem of Christ promising to be with his church until the end of the world, when he will still be with the Church after the end of the world. And so the problem of until persists.

165 posted on 05/14/2010 8:44:10 PM PDT by cothrige
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 164 | View Replies]

To: blue-duncan

Thanks BD...Another “keeper”.


166 posted on 05/14/2010 8:46:12 PM PDT by boatbums (God is ready to assume full responsibility for the life wholly yielded to him.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: theoldmarine
I don’t claim to know his heart, just his false doctrine.

I read you post, you accused the poster of idolatry or as you put it "maryolotry". Clearly you know their heart if you are able to discern worship from veneration. Calling an attack an ad hominem simply because it cuts a little to close to the bone is Weak. Man up, retract your retract your judgment or produce the post where the the poster in question admits to elevating Our Lady to the position of a deity.

Semper Fi.

167 posted on 05/14/2010 10:04:57 PM PDT by conservonator (How many times? 7X70!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: NYer
For an interpretation of Scripture to be acceptable (which does not mean it is necessarily correct)

ROTFLMAO!!!
**Note**
For the purposes of the RF, the
"a" above stands for "armpits."

168 posted on 05/14/2010 10:19:43 PM PDT by roamer_1 (Globalism is just Socialism in a business suit)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: conservonator

The very first paragraph sounds to be written by one who had already committed intellectual suicide.


169 posted on 05/14/2010 10:24:04 PM PDT by John Leland 1789 (Grateful)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 167 | View Replies]

To: Iscool
I am almost speechless and I can imagine what God thinks about this...

If it were possible for God to be surprised, It could easily be due to Iscool being rendered "almost speechless".

: P

170 posted on 05/14/2010 10:28:24 PM PDT by roamer_1 (Globalism is just Socialism in a business suit)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

Those claiming one clear interpretation for scripture disagree on what that interpretation is, hence their different beliefs and doctrines and churches - or no churches.

Which proves the basic point of this article.


171 posted on 05/14/2010 10:38:37 PM PDT by D-fendr (Deus non alligatur sacramentis sed nos alligamur.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 170 | View Replies]

To: theoldmarine; UriÂ’el-2012
You are (may I say ‘typically’ for Roman apologists)[...]

UriÂ’el-2012 will certainly defend himself (he has no need of me), but I will be happy to proclaim, with a thunderous voice:

UriÂ’el-2012 is no Roman apologist... He is the farthest thing from it.

172 posted on 05/14/2010 10:59:08 PM PDT by roamer_1 (Globalism is just Socialism in a business suit)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: Iscool
But one thing we do know is that they rejected your popes and because of that, you have branded them heretics...

Well, not exactly. They rejected the councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon. That's what certifies them as heretics.

I think it right to say that when the Son became incarnate, He held nothing back. From zygote to corpse, He was fully invested in the human condition, and His love for us was so great that He spent himself utterly and without reserve for our redemption.

The Arians say that God so loved the world that He said to one of His creatures, "Hey, you, go die for the humans."

The Nestorians say God so loved the world that He dipped His toe into our condition.

The Catholics say that God so fully and unreservedly loved the world that he threw Himself as entirely as possible into creation to redeem us.

For me, I will not speak for others, to call our Lady "Mother of God" is to proclaim with joy and gratitude the wonder and mystery of a God who becomes part of what He has made.

173 posted on 05/14/2010 11:18:54 PM PDT by Mad Dawg (O Maria, sine labe concepta, ora pro nobis qui ad te confugimus.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 145 | View Replies]

To: metmom

Why is it so important to Catholics that Mary had always remained a virgin? What difference would it have made if she hadn’t?

This is one of the many issues that I had with the catholic church that caused me to leave it. I still have not gotten a good answer to this question. I was even told once that Romans 3:23 “for ALL have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” did not include Mary as part of the “all”. I have noticed that for all of the posts you have gotten in response to the brothers and sisters question, nobody wants to attempt to answer this part of the post.

God bless


174 posted on 05/14/2010 11:20:26 PM PDT by WorldviewDad (following God instead of culture)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: Iscool
So when scripture says 'I and the Father are one', that doesn't really mean that Jesus is God???The Jehovah's Witnesses say it means they are one in purpose and point to the texts in which IHS says "The Father is greater than I."
175 posted on 05/14/2010 11:21:30 PM PDT by Mad Dawg (O Maria, sine labe concepta, ora pro nobis qui ad te confugimus.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 159 | View Replies]

To: WorldviewDad

I don’t understand the connection you seem to be drawing between the loss of virginity and sin. Or am I missing your point?

Virginity, NOT engaging in sexual intercourse, is eschatological. Most of us live as children of this age, or with one foot in this age and the other in the next. And certainly God’s grace makes matrimony a powerful vehicle of His grace.

But in heaven they do not marry nor are they given in marriage for they are like the angels (in that respect).

Mary is a figure representing the breaking into the “here and now” of God’s Kingdom. As we will be sinless in heaven, she is sinless “now.” As we will enjoy royal rank and honor in heaven, she is Queen now. As we will, on the last day, be united with our bodies so that the mystery of the resurrection will be accomplished in us, so Mary now is, as we say “assumed.”

This is, to us, not merely a figure or a symbol. To us, as John of the Apocalypse suggests of the woman clothed with the sun, it is a “sign,” a reality whose meaning is eternal and revelatory.

Mary need not have known or understood this for it to be true. And for us who trust in God’s promise to the Church, it need not be in Scripture to be true.


176 posted on 05/14/2010 11:36:09 PM PDT by Mad Dawg ("Be kind to everyone you meet, for every person is fighting a great battle" -- St. Ephraim)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 174 | View Replies]

This is going to be a thousand post thread.


177 posted on 05/15/2010 12:12:00 AM PDT by redgolum ("God is dead" -- Nietzsche. "Nietzsche is dead" -- God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 176 | View Replies]

To: Mad Dawg
I apologize for the confusion. I was not trying to connect virginity to sin but I can see how it could be read that way. I was agreeing with the poster I was responding to as to...why is it so important that Mary remained a virgin? And clumsily attached another issue about Mary as being without sin onto the reply(this was fresh in my memory since this discussion had just taken place).

If I understand your response correctly you are stating that Mary is currently in heaven and as such is now without sin. My question would then be...when she was on earth was she without sin?

And the original question is still out there...why is it important that Mary remained a virgin?

178 posted on 05/15/2010 12:12:42 AM PDT by WorldviewDad (following God instead of culture)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 176 | View Replies]

To: Mad Dawg

Just checked out your about page...do you still raise sheep? I have a small flock of romney sheep.


179 posted on 05/15/2010 12:19:01 AM PDT by WorldviewDad (following God instead of culture)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 176 | View Replies]

To: NYer

Of course Scripture agrees with the Church. After all, Scripture is a Tradition of the Church.


180 posted on 05/15/2010 1:03:12 AM PDT by Al Hitan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 141-160161-180181-200 ... 2,221-2,227 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson