Posted on 07/25/2010 1:37:12 PM PDT by betty boop
Hello Betty. I am afraid I cannot deal with incoherence. I will simply read your attempts at teaching. I learn something every time I do.
Sorry Quix. I thought I was writing to Betty boop.
Yes. By those who were angered by his advocacy of religious freedom and the consequent loss of their sinecure. “They wish it to be believed that he can have no religion who advocates its freedom.”
“Jefferson rewrote the New Testament and rejected Paul. he even declared "I am of a sect by myself, as far as I know."
So, what?
You refuse to admit that he [Jefferson] rejected Paul and that he rejected Jesus as divine. Maybe you do too, but somehow you consider yourself a "Christian."
It’s irrelevant. Jefferson was commissioned to sum up the spirit of the Revolutionary Generation, and did it so well that his words have become as one with that spirit. The topic is “Two Revolutions, Two Views of Man” and Jefferson’s writing perfectly describes one of those views.
“I can appreciate Jesus' morality and Christian values without being a Christian.”
Proving what, with respect to the topic?
“Jesus never said that.” [Jefferson’s advice to his namesake]
Did not Jesus admonish us to keep the commandments? (Matthew 19:17) And so did Jefferson advise his namesake. Further: “Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven; but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.” (Matthew 5:19)
“He [Jefferson] was a deist and deism is not Christianity.”
Jefferson knew Christianity very well, and so thoroughly that he described himself a Christian. Your vehement protests changes not a whit of it.
“Is there any evidence that he [Paine] changed his mind?”
Contrast Paine’s work of 1776 with that of 1794. You don’t see a difference? The Revolutionary Generation saw a difference, and Paine went from one of the most celebrated men in American to dying in disgrace and disdain.
“Blowing smoke. I asked you to show me where in the Document . . .”
Blowing smoke yourself. I’ve explained the Founders’ attitude about it and you cannot seem to bring yourself to accept that. If you can’t agree, then fine, don’t agree. Just don’t insist I repeat myself until you get the answer you want.
“What attack?”
Paine’s Age of Reason is nothing but a relentless attack on Christianity.
“What is your problem?”
I don’t have a problem. What's yours?
And I have provided ample evidence that the Founding Generation were convinced contrarily. Going over the same ground will change nothing.
“Oh so now we are mind reading?”
Who is this “we,” Pilgrim?
“What makes you think I "seem" to think I am infallible?”
You ask, are the Founders infallible? I ask in return, are you infallible? You can’t seem to accept their judgment that The Declaration, which they wrote, was inspired by their Christian belief. You must believe your knowledge at least superior to theirs, if not infallible. Why else would you ask the question?
How pathetic?”
Are you asking me? Or are you making it personal?
“This is not about me but about Jefferson & others.”
You ask, “Is it against the law to interpret them individually?” I ask, Is it against the law to dispute your interpretations. You’re referring to your interpretations. Whom is making it about you, if not you?
“You are making it about me.”
Case building.
“I never accused anyone of blasphemy or "treason" for disagreeing with me.”
That’s right. You accused me of accusing you of treason, if not blasphemy, for having a different opinion of the Fathers. (“You make it sound as if having a different opinion of the Fathers is treason if not blasphemy?”)
“What's the matter? Running out of stuff to write so now we going to make this about me? No, we are not.”
More case building. If it’s not about you then stop talking about you.
“You are telling me to shut up?”
Is that a question? Or, have you an accusation? If an accusation, you have to account for the meaning of the following “He explained” to make the accusation stick. You tell me “Get hold of your emotions and pipe down your presumptuous attitude.” That reads like “shut up!” to me. The same sort of reaction I get from a lot of people who think they are above having to deal with disputation.
“Get lost, troll!”
Isn’t that making it personal? And conclusion jumping (And insulting)?
“Who are you to tell me to shut up?
It’s more like you were telling me to shut up. You’re really working up a lather of indignation now.
“If you have nothing to bring to the table but throw insults and make this personal, then you are on the wrong forum.”
In full case making mode now. Very impressive.
Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.
Your behavior condemns your own actions. Whenever I mention Adams’ declaration that the Revolutionary Act was fueled by Christian influences, your response is that he (Adams) was no Christian. If not to disqualify his thoughts, then to what end? Don’t insult this forum by saying, “to set the record straight,” because the question remains, to what end if not to disqualify his thoughts.
“Now, as to your ridiculous and unfounded accusation: I do say that Unitarists are not Christians and if he was a Unitarists, someone who denied the divinity of Christ, then he was no Christian. That's not seeking to disqualify Adams' thoughts, just set the record straight.”
Really?! To what end, if not to disqualify what Adams has to say about the Revolutionary Act?
“I think you are mixing apples and oranges."
Prove it.
“If I say that there is nothing biblical in the Declaration that is a fact and you have no reason to disagree with that regardless . . . ”
The Revolutionary Generation disputes your “fact.” That is reason enough for me to disagree.
“Besides, I never said I wasn't able to "find" God (now you are making things up!), but that I don't know what God is!”
If you don’t know what God is, then you certainly haven’t found God. I seem to recall reading you also saying you weren’t able to find God, but it’s a pretty well established fact that human memory is a very unreliable source of information. Thanks for setting the record straight (if you did).
“That still doesn't change the fact that there is nothing explicitly or implicitly Christian or biblical in the text of the Declaration.”
And, your fact does not change the fact that the Revolutionary Generation was certain that The Declaration was explicitly Christian.
“One thing is certain: rejecting a fact simply because I am an agnostic is neither logical nor warranted.”
Mind reading; a practiced much frowned upon. And misrepresentation (your Agnosticism is not the basis of my dispute; I have made clear the reason).
“Mind reading.”
Really?! Someone as obviously schooled in Christianity as yourself, and you’re not aware of two hundred years of persecution of Christianity by Roman Might before Christian meekness persevered over that Roman Might?
“How about reviewing Religion Forum rules?
You’re right. I could stand a review. It’s just that I’ve never even thought to use forum rules against another poster.
“So? What's the point."
As stated.
“To prevail does not mean to extinguish or to eliminate or to eradicate, expunge, annihilate, etc."
Sometimes, perhaps. Sometimes, perhaps not. In this instance Roman Might was intended to enforce an edict. After some two hundred years, Roman Might failed.
RM, it's pretty obvious who started this. You already removed #668. Maybe it's time to remove #703, 704 and 706 as well, and put an end to this flame-baiting. Thank you.
I was reading Summa Theologica this morning and came across this very good explanation that I wanted to pass along to you,dear sister
http://ivww.newadvent.org/summa/1118.htm
Article 3. Whether human souls were created together at the beginning of the world?
Objection 1. It would seem that human souls were created together at the beginning of the world. For it is written (Genesis 2:2): “God rested Him from all His work which He had done.” This would not be true if He created new souls every day. Therefore all souls were created at the same time.
Objection 2. Further, spiritual substances before all others belong to the perfection of the universe. If therefore souls were created with the bodies, every day innumerable spiritual substances would be added to the perfection of the universe: consequently at the beginning the universe would have been imperfect. This is contrary to Genesis 2:2, where it is said that “God ended” all “His work.”
Objection 3. Further, the end of a thing corresponds to its beginning. But the intellectual soul remains, when the body perishes. Therefore it began to exist before the body.
On the contrary, It is said (De Eccl. Dogmat. xiv, xviii) that “the soul is created together with the body.”
I answer that, Some have maintained that it is accidental to the intellectual soul to be united to the body, asserting that the soul is of the same nature as those spiritual substances which are not united to a body. These, therefore, stated that the souls of men were created together with the angels at the beginning. But this statement is false.
Firstly, in the very principle on which it is based. For if it were accidental to the soul to be united to the body, it would follow that man who results from this union is a being by accident; or that the soul is a man, which is false, as proved above (Question 75, Article 4). Moreover, that the human soul is not of the same nature as the angels, is proved from the different mode of understanding, as shown above (55, 2; 85, 1): for man understands through receiving from the senses, and turning to phantasms, as stated above (84, 6,7; 85, 1). For this reason the soul needs to be united to the body, which is necessary to it for the operation of the sensitive part: whereas this cannot be said of an angel.
Secondly, this statement can be proved to be false in itself. For if it is natural to the soul to be united to the body, it is unnatural to it to be without a body, and as long as it is without a body it is deprived of its natural perfection. Now it was not fitting that God should begin His work with things imperfect and unnatural, for He did not make man without a hand or a foot, which are natural parts of a man. Much less, therefore, did He make the soul without a body.
But if someone say that it is not natural to the soul to be united to the body, he must give the reason why it is united to a body. And the reason must be either because the soul so willed, or for some other reason. If because the soul willed it—this seems incongruous.
First, because it would be unreasonable of the soul to wish to be united to the body, if it did not need the body: for if it did need it, it would be natural for it to be united to it, since “nature does not fail in what is necessary.”
Secondly, because there would be no reason why, having been created from the beginning of the world, the soul should, after such a long time, come to wish to be united to the body. For a spiritual substance is above time, and superior to the heavenly revolutions.
Thirdly, because it would seem that this body was united to this soul by chance: since for this union to take place two wills would have to concur—to wit, that of the incoming soul, and that of the begetter. If, however, this union be neither voluntary nor natural on the part of the soul, then it must be the result of some violent cause, and to the soul would have something of a penal and afflicting nature. This is in keeping with the opinion of Origen, who held that souls were embodies in punishment of sin. Since, therefore, all these opinions are unreasonable, we must simply confess that souls were not created before bodies, but are created at the same time as they are infused into them.
Reply to Objection 1. God is said to have rested on the seventh day, not from all work, since we read (John 5:17): “My Father worketh until now”; but from the creation of any new genera and species, which may not have already existed in the first works. For in this sense, the souls which are created now, existed already, as to the likeness of the species, in the first works, which included the creation of Adam’s soul.
Reply to Objection 2. Something can be added every day to the perfection of the universe, as to the number of individuals, but not as to the number of species.
Reply to Objection 3. That the soul remains without the body is due to the corruption of the body, which was a result of sin. Consequently it was not fitting that God should make the soul without the body from the beginning: for as it is written (Wisdom 1:13-16): “God made not death . . . but the wicked with works and words have called it to them.”
“Both. Prevail is less judgmental. But the side that prevails gets its way and says what is right.
And that “side” is always Might. Right?
“Too many Hollywood movies.
Really?! You mean to tell me that Christian Martyrdom is nothing but a PR scheme? Sounds ahistorical to me, but you’ve taken ownership of that claim. Good luck.
“Might is measured by outcome, not sheer force.
Really?! Do you mean to tell me that might is on a sliding scale depending on what your present philosophical needs require?
might 2 noun
great and impressive power or strength, esp. of a nation, large organization, or natural force: a convincing display of military might. (Italics in text)
“Have you heard of him proposing to resist evil to the death?”
Matthew 10:22 would apply here, I think (and 10:28; and 10:38-39). Off the top of my head. Surely, there are others.
“The crispy "critters and broken bodies" is Hollywood;”
All just a Christian PR scheme? I see.
“Yes of course, but in the real world we do have choices (usually)”
Tell that to the guy who doesn’t think he should be forced to pay the income tax (unless he is Charlie Rangel, or some other Democrat apparatchik). Rand dealt with your “choice” proposition with the mugger parable (your money or your life – some choice). Stalin was never an ally in the sense that Great Britain was, so what compromise (if you equate ‘choice’ with ‘compromise’) was required? We did compromise with the USSR, just the same. And paid for it with near fifty years’ of national headaches (just one of many such “compromises” that have plagued us since 1941).
“And how does he [Jefferson] know that?
“We have heard it said,” Jefferson wrote. And apparently he agreed. It is consistent with Jefferson’s character that he would. If you object to Jefferson’s judgment on that issue, take it up with him. Pack for an extended trip.
Jesus never said what Jefferson suggests (except what is line through), to wit: "Adore God. Reverence and cherish your parents. Love your neighbor as yourself, and your country more than yourself."
It’s more like you were telling me to shut up
"More like" I never said anything to that effect. Persecution issues?
Matthew 10:22 would apply here, I think (and 10:28; and 10:38-39
Doesn't say resist evil to the death. Matthew 5:39 however does say "do not oppose evil [or the evil one]." The verses you mention either have no relevance or call for taking on a cross (which is consistent with Petrine Epistles calling the faithful to suffer, by offering themselves in emulation of Christ, bit never to resist).
All just a Christian PR scheme?
Pretty much. The number of Christians was exceedingly small and there were really no organized campaigns by Romans to wipe them off the face of the earth; most of the anti-Christian violence was spontaneous mob lynchings of a sect perceived as effeminate and rumored to be cannibalistic. The rest is mostly Christian myth.
so what compromise (if you equate ‘choice’ with ‘compromise’) was required?
This was an illustration that in the real world compromise with evil is not always abject surrender bur a pragmatic necessity.
line through =lined through
bur=but
Matthew 19:17 - Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.
Matthew 22:37-40 - Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.
Jefferson invokes the two great commandments “adore God” and “Love your neighbor as yourself,” then adds “and your country more than yourself.” The latter being his own idea. He also advises his namesake to honor his mother and father (“Reverence and cherish your parents”), another of the Commandments. He concludes with “Be just. Be true. Murmur not at the ways of Providence.” invocations of Christ to which no one familiar with Christianity could possibly object unless they be in denial.
”More like” I never said anything to that effect.”
“Get hold of your emotions and pipe down your presumptuous attitude.” Close enough. Less has been known to have started a flame war.
”Persecution issues?”
Now, now. You’re making this very personal, and we’re supposed to be discussing issues.
“The verses you mention either have no relevance or call for taking on a cross”
”And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me.” (Matthew 10:38). That’s exactly what many early Christians did rather than deny Christ. And many another has endured torture or death rather than deny Christ, which they consider any surrender to evil to be. It continues to this day (see Voice of the Martyrs).
”The number of Christians was exceedingly small”
There is no accurate, specific count of Christian deaths at the hands of the Romans. Historians of the time used such expression as “a great many” or “large numbers.”
”there were really no organized campaigns by Romans to wipe them off the face of the earth”
To the best of my knowledge no one says Roman forays against Christians were continuous and organized. Or that their objective was to wipe Christians of the face of the earth. But, the notion that the number of Christian deaths was exceedingly small is an Atheist/Agnostic myth
“This was an illustration that in the real world compromise with evil is not always abject surrender bur a pragmatic necessity.”
What was an illustration? The cowardly behavior of the League of Nations? The corruption of Western Civilization? The abandonment of Christian values? Some compromise.
My comment was in response to your #632 where you write: " A man, who apparently believed similarly as you, turned on the American people, betrayed their trust by denouncing everything they held sacred, in the mistaken thought that he could sway them to any way of thinking he wished, discovered he could not, and died with their scorn and in disgrace. Would that no better fate should await you, but I defer to the Lord’s will on that issue."
And all this is in response to my statement "Those who deny the divinity of Jesus or the Trinitarian nature of God are not Christians." (#623) For that I am associated with "turning against" the American people, "betraying their trust", even "denouncing" everything [sic] they held sacred, and just might, like the fellow I am likened to, "die in scorn and disgrace," wishing me no better fate? Talk about above and beyond!
And you think that telling someone to turn down such emotional and confrontation attitude is reason enough to start flame wars? Over what? Over the fact that Christianity is founded on the belief that Christ is divine and that those who deny Jesus' divinity are not considered Christians no matter how much they call on his name? Well, it's true! They are not Christians, even if they swear up and down that they are.
Who? What is the date of the oldest copy? Where is corroborating evidence and what does "great many' and "large numbers" mean? The Bible speaks of the slaughter of the innocent children by Herod, yet there is no historical evidence of any such event, even in highly detailed accounts of Herod's life by writers such as Josephus. So, take ancient accounts with a grain of salt because they are usually exaggerated and even outright myths.
Other "evidence," suggests that Christian the Apostles and Apostolic Fathers were targeted, such as St. Paul, St. Irenaeus, St. Polycarp, St. Justin Maryr, etc. It's all legendary. Nero's persecution of Christains in Rome in 65 AD is indistinguishable from the targeting of the Jews, since Christians and Jews were not distinct groups (Christians still attended synagogues in Paul's time) in Rome in 65 AD.
Christian martyrdom in Israel is estimated at mere 2,000. And records of the seven-year pogrom of Christians (303 to 311 AD), incorrectly blamed mostly on Diocletian, is said to have claimed approximately 3,000 lives, a figure one must seriously scrutinize since the laws also targeted Manechaenas as "Christians" and sects. This was the biggest persecution ever. And even then, the clergy rather than the populace were targeted.
So, yes, the myth of some enormous persecution and reign of terror is a Christian myth, among many, an exaggeration that is accepted by most Christians as "fact" without even reviewing the facts. The "persecutions" were a series of laws demanding pagan worship and loyalty to the Caesar the way we expect allegiance to the country. This did not start until the middle of the 3rd century, and ended by the first decade of the 4th, spanning approximately 71 years. (240 - 311 AD).
Christian persecutions mostly affected the eastern side of the empire. Christians, and people thought to be Christians (Gnostics, etc.), in the Gaul and other western regions were pretty much left unaffected.
No doubt, one would expect brave individuals to do so, but their number is unknown and by all accounts was few and far in between. St. Cyprian was the one who argued that eastern Christians who worshiped pagan gods under edicts should not be readmitted into the Church, but he was overruled, indicating that the number of Christians who "failed" by succumbing to the pressure was great enough to be of importance to the Church to issue a general amnesty. In other words, most were pragmatic enough to choose life rather than lose it.
How many people do you think would die today if they had to choose between publicly denouncing their faith and dying? I am sure most people would publicly denounce their faith and continue to believe in secret the way the majority of Spanish Jews did. They converted to Catholicism and lived Catholic lives publicly but worshiped as Jews privately for 300 years before emigrating to Holland. That's how the Jews survived. That's how the Christians survived.
The illustration is that sometimes, in order to survive, in the real world we choose the a lesser evil without abjectly surrendering to evil and that Ayn Rand's "choice" was neither a choice nor applicable to reality.
--o0o--
I think we have pretty much exhausted all there is to be said and can only continue by beating a dead horse. I think relentless inquiry and unemotional approach goes farther in revealing the truths about people and issues. The best thing to do is not to succumb to to the temptation of legends created by idealizing what is not ideal, namely human beings and their works, and that includes what we may hold sacred. That doesn't mean disrespect, just a realization that no one is perfect and no human work is perfect.
Now, now. We’ve both been enjoined to not make it personal, but rather to discuss the issues.
“. . . those who deny Jesus' divinity are not considered Christians no matter how much they call on his name? Well, it's true! They are not Christians, even if they swear up and down that they are.”
Nonetheless, even if that assessment is entirely true, it does not address the fact that the Revolutionary Generation, “Diest” and Christian alike, are unequivocal in their affirmation that the Revolutionary Act was grounded in Christian values. All this frantic hand-waving and dust kicking-up changes not a whit of it.
Tacitus’ Annals, with respect to Nero, speaks of a great multitude torn by dogs, nailed to crosses, or tormented by flames, but I’m sure his historical writings are dismissed as nonsense by the deniers of Christian persecution by Romans. Gibbons speaks with frustration at the lack of specific numbers of Christian deaths at the hands of the Romans (or by their leave), but one would think that the lack of specific numbers of Christian deaths casts as much doubt on “exceedingly small” as it does it does on “large numbers.” Apparently not.
“The "persecutions" were a series of laws demanding pagan worship and loyalty to the Caesar the way we expect allegiance to the country.”
And was not death the penalty for refusal? My point was that in the persecution of Christians, Roman Might did not prevail. I guess the Deniers’ response is that the Romans didn’t really try very hard.
“Christian persecutions mostly affected the eastern side of the empire.”
And this means that since it was in the East, it doesn’t count for much?
If their number is unknown, how can it be thought “all accounts” believe their number to be few and far between?
“ How many people do you think would die today if they had to choose between publicly denouncing their faith and dying?”
I have no idea. I’m very sure those who have no faith would have no trouble denouncing the nonexistent. Others would discover whether or not they possessed faith, or just convention. Truly, we have been put on notice that we may be tested:
“Then shall they deliver you up to be afflicted, and shall kill you: and ye shall be hated of all nations for my name’s sake. And then shall many be offended, and shall betray one another, and shall hate one another. And many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many. And because iniquity shall abound, the love of many shall wax cold.”
Sounds so much like today that it is downright spooky. But I am sure that many times in the past it has seemed likewise. Like when Romans were killing Christians.
“The illustration is that sometimes, in order to survive, in the real world we choose the a lesser evil without abjectly surrendering to evil and that Ayn Rand's "choice" was neither a choice nor applicable to reality.”
Well, in the “real world” (albeit in a minor key), we may observe that the NY Republican Party chose to endorse a “lesser evil” RINO (Scozzafava), as a compromise, rather than a Conservative (Hoffman), and when the RINO saw that she could not win against a Conservative, she betrayed her party and threw her support behind a Democrat (Owen), ensuring his win. You can compromise on details, but not on principle. So, in the “real world” and back to the major key, if you chose to compromise with evil, you will surrender your principle to evil. Evil has no interest in details.
Of course Rand’s “choice” was no choice. That was her point. There is no “choice” in a compromise with Evil. Either you resist evil, or you surrender to it. What ever you give up as a compromise, evil will demand more. It never ends until there’s nothing left.
“I think we have pretty much exhausted all there is to be said and can only continue by beating a dead horse.”
OK, stop beating the horse. I can take a hint.
“The best thing to do is not to succumb to the temptation of legends created by idealizing what is not ideal, namely human beings and their works, and that includes what we may hold sacred.”
It’s a material world. Nothing’s sacred, baby.
“That doesn't mean disrespect . . .”
No, no. Of course not.
Yes we have and that's good and proper. I was not making it personal, however; just asking a general question. :)
Sure, they believed them to be Christian values, but I ask again which Christian values? Being endowed with freedom to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are not Christian, much less specifically Christian values. Creator or "God of Nature" is not a Christian-only concept. Such terminology is curiously absent from Christian thinking preceding the English Enlightenment and the rise of Deism.
Of course, we can only presume, but not claim as historical fact, that's what Tacitus wrote in the 2nd century about the 1st century events—or that any of it is historically accurate, given that the oldest extant copies of Tacitus' Annals (chapters 1-6) were written by Christian scribes in the mid 9th century AD (Codex Mediceus), and the other (Mediceus II), in the early 11th century (chapters 11-16).
If Tacitus were a valuable source of Christian history he surely would have been used more extensively. But this is not the case. Tacitus was all but forgotten until the Renaissance. Between the 5th and the 15th century, there is simply hardly any mention of Tacitus.
It's a matter of reconstructing a circumstantial picture, based on a variety of factors, such as Roman census reports, politics, and sidebar references made by various authors.
First, in Nero's time (60's AD) Christians were indistinguishable from the Jews, especially to Romans. Any persecution of Christians would have automatically involved other Jewish sects congregating in synagogues.
Second, Roman laws that directly affected Christians (and similar sects) do not appear before 240 AD, and all punishment exacted on uncooperative Christians ceases in 311 AD with one period of a few years under Dioclecian's rule as being the "worst" with an estimated 20,000 deaths.
Third, we don't know which Christians were targeted, as there were any, many sects (Christianity was entirely heterodox until the first Nicene Council in 325 AD).
Fourth, there is no evidence that Christians represented anything but an insignificant albeit somewhat unorthodox mystery cult.
Fifth, all indications are that the Christian congregations were not targeted but their leaders, the clergy.
Sixth, rumor mills and oral transmission of "what happened" have a known characteristic for distortion and exaggeration.
Seventh, textual corruption of original manuscripts by Christian scribes is a well-documented phenomenon. I cold go on, but I am sure you get the picture.
Roman might did not seek to convert Christians to pagans but to make them obey Roman law. In that Roman might of course succeeded, either by having some Christians show their obedience or by punishing those who didn't. Those who refused to obey the law were punished. Our society is no different than Rome was in that respect )in principle). The Romans could care less what Christians believed in or whom they called God; they did consider burning incense to Caesar a matter of pledging loyalty to the Roman state, and refusing to do so as a statement of treason.
Roman might did prevail, again, in making Christianity the state religion, because it sought to accomplish that. No matter how you turn it around, it was how the Roman might saw things fit.
No, it simply means that it was not something that affected the whole Empire and shows the extent to which the whole thing is overblown by Christian apologetics.
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.