Wanna talk about the Bible?

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
Post Reply
_Sam Harris
_Emeritus
Posts: 2261
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 2:35 am

Wanna talk about the Bible?

Post by _Sam Harris »

I decided to post this up here in hopes that our resident uber-mormons will be less inclined to personal attacks when faced with something that goes against what they believe. It is my opinion that there are some parts of the LDS faith and also Conservative Christianity that are simply not biblical. They are "doctrines of men", taken from a misreading/misinterpretation of biblical scripture, and blown way out of proportion. Example: the earliest justification for racism, Aaron and Miriam being upset at Moses's wife, because she was a Cushite woman. LDS example: "ye are gods", meaning apparently to them that we will one day rule our own planet and people if we're good enough.

As I said on harmony's "Jesus is a Mormon" thread, the Bible is a very esoteric text, at least to me. When I first started reading it, I didn't know what the hell I was reading. And I was raised between two faiths who both used the book, both of them not knowing what they were reading either. So many people who read this book come away with perceptions on how this book and what is in it should be applied to their lives, and far too many come away with ideas that they are somehow superior to others (God's people), or that they have a right to be cruel to non-Christian humanity. I could elaborate, but if you've ever come across a fundie Christian, you know what I mean.

I'm a religious studies major. I decided to take this path when I started my transition out of the LDS church a few years ago, and sat down to think about why I got into the faith in the first place. What motivated me? What motivates others to believe what they believe? My dream is a church where no one is turned away, where the faith is strong and the worship dynamic, the teaching relevant for everyday life. My dream has come true in a way, because when I can I do get to attend a church like that. But many folks are still stuck in tradition, and feeling trapped at that. My dream is to be able in some way shape or form to be able to reach folks like that. In what way, I do not yet know. People ask me all the time if I'm gonna be a pastor, the verdict seriously isn't in yet. I'm a tempermental antisocial individual, hardly pastoral material. Anyways...

I wanted to start a part of this thread today, as I'm kind of tired, and the ideas I want to present are going to take some time. But if anyone is willing, and I hope that when Jason gets back from his vacation he will still be willing, I'd like to discuss the Bible in depth. Here are a few starter questions that I plan to asnwer as well:

Firstly, on a personal level, how do you see the Bible? To me, there is no wrong answer to this question.

For those who read in depth, do you see a theme in Old Testament? How do you feel about the idea of the Old Testament being a testament of Christ from beginning to end? If you think that it is, what brought you to that conclusion?

There are some who feel that the Old Testament and New Testament are not interrelated. How do you feel about this?

The writers of the New Testament, and the authors of the four Gospels especially, how do you feel about their writings? Have you read any of the Gnostic Gospels? What do you think of them?

Was the Council of Nicea truly the first time anyone agreed on the complete biblical canon? How was the Hebrew Bible decided upon?

The idea of Temple worship in the early Christian church, where is the evidence for this?

I've probably overwhelmed the thread already, but this stuff fascinates me. In time I would like to broaden my studies to other religions, but I thought it best to have an exhaustive knowledge of my own first. So I focus here first, hope it does not annoy. Take whatever aspects you are comfortable with, and reply if you wish.
Each one has to find his peace from within. And peace to be real must be unaffected by outside circumstances. -Ghandi
_Gazelam
_Emeritus
Posts: 5659
Joined: Thu Oct 26, 2006 2:06 am

Bible studies

Post by _Gazelam »

Thanks for starting this thread GIMR. This promises to be really interesting. I spent alot of time last year discussing scripture with a Born Again Christian, I even took a study cource (And half another one) with him at his church (part of the Calvery Chapel chain). it was really interesting. How far into your Fathers faith did you get, did you say he was Jewish?

On to your questions:

1. "......how do you see the Bible? To me, there is no wrong answer to this question."

Scripture is the spirit of prophecyt in its recorded form. its our textbook in how the Spirit of Prophecy functions. when we familiarize ourselves with its Spirit, we gain insight into the mind and wil of the Lord. That is why we must always pray and ask for the direction of the Holy Ghost before we study. Many , if not most, of the founding revelations of our dispensation were born in scriptural study. By studying James Joseph was lead to the sacred grove. By studying the Book of Mormon passages about Baptism, Joseph and Oliver were led to John the Baptist and the sesquehannah river. Jospeh F. Smith was studying the scriptures when he received his revelation concerning the redemption of the dead.

2. "....do you see a theme in Old Testament? How do you feel about the idea of the Old Testament being a testament of Christ from beginning to end? If you think that it is, what brought you to that conclusion?"

I think Christ himself expressed for us just the way we should view the Old Testament.

John 8:56-59
56 Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad.
57 Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham?
58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.
59 Then took they up stones to cast at him: but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by

It was Christ who spoke to Moses from the bush, saying, tell them I AM hath sent you (Exodus 3:13-14) With this in mind, the Old Testament becomes much clearer. And also we gain further understanding of the relationship between the Father, Son, And us. View these scriptures in relation to John 17:19-23.

3. "There are some who feel that the Old Testament and New Testament are not interrelated. How do you feel about this?" see above.

4. "The writers of the New Testament, and the authors of the four Gospels especially, how do you feel about their writings? Have you read any of the Gnostic Gospels? What do you think of them? "

In following the writings, there is alot to be said in seing the progression of the apostles. The growth they go through as they take in the teachings and apply them. Its unfortunate that there are so many gaps in the stories, particularly concerning the rearing of Christ and his formative years. We get a brief mention of this in the Doctrine and Covenants, but I think we could learn alot if we had the full story, or just a few examples even.

Concerning the gnostic Gospel, I've been exposed to them primarily through Hugh Nibleys writeings. He draws alot of great insights from them. He states that The Pastor of Hermas should probably be canonized. Does that count as gnostic, or Apocryphal?

A few links:
http://farms.BYU.edu/display.php?table=transcripts&id=57
http://farms.BYU.edu/display.php?table=transcripts&id=59

5. "Was the Council of Nicea truly the first time anyone agreed on the complete biblical canon? How was the Hebrew Bible decided upon?"

I found a great website on that subject, I've had it on my favorites list for a long time now. http://www.ntcanon.org/index.shtml

6. The idea of Temple worship in the early Christian church, where is the evidence for this?

One of the first questions that Clement, the ardent investigator, puts to Peter is, "shall those be wholly deprived of the kingdom of heaven who died before Christ's coming?" To this the apostle gives a most significant answer: he assures Clement that the people in question are not damned and never will be, and explains that provision has been made for their salvation, but this, he says, is "as far as we are allowed to declare these things," excusing himself from telling more: "you compel me, O Clement, to touch upon things which we are forbidden to discuss." (Clementine Recognitions I, 52, in PG 1:1236.)

There is that doctrine of secrecy that people often oppose when speaking out against the church. Temple ordinances are sacred, and so we find scant mention of them in the scriptures.

1 Corinthians 15 is Pauls great discource on the resurrection and its relevence to us all. He brings into this doscource the fact that all those born here will be resurrected and the need for baptism to seal the name of Christ upon us all. 1 Cor 15:29.

Tied to this is what made baptism for the dead possible. 1 Peter 3:18-20 states
18 For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:
19 By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison;
20 Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water. (On a side note, notice the testimony of a global flood and of the work Noah did)

and the following shortly after: 1 Peter 4:6 " For for this cause was the gospel preached also to them that are dead, that they might be judged according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit."

The understanding that redemption for the dead had been taught by Christ, the authority given to seal on earth and in heaven (Matt 16:13-20) That they used this authority is certain, since the doctrine is expressed. And this work was done in Temples, even a temporary one such as they would have used.

further reading: http://farms.BYU.edu/display.php?table=transcripts&id=67

Gaz
We can easily forgive a child who is afraid of the dark; the real tragedy of life is when men are afraid of the light. - Plato
_Sam Harris
_Emeritus
Posts: 2261
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 2:35 am

Post by _Sam Harris »

Gaz, thank you for your interesting insight. I will get back to you in pieces over the course of this week.
Each one has to find his peace from within. And peace to be real must be unaffected by outside circumstances. -Ghandi
_MormonMendacity
_Emeritus
Posts: 405
Joined: Wed Nov 15, 2006 12:56 am

Re: Wanna talk about the Bible?

Post by _MormonMendacity »

GIMR wrote:It is my opinion that there are some parts of the LDS faith and also Conservative Christianity that are simply not biblical.

Is that a good thing or a bad thing? And as follow up questions: why should we trust the current biblical canon and reject all the thousands of other texts that have been excluded? Why should we trust the people who chose the canon without questioning their motives?
"Suppose we've chosen the wrong god. Every time we go to church we're just making him madder and madder" --Homer Simpson's version of Pascal's Wager
Religion began when the first scoundrel met the first fool.
Religion is ignorance reduced to a system.
_Sam Harris
_Emeritus
Posts: 2261
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 2:35 am

Post by _Sam Harris »

Hey MM,

Quick thought. I'm getting ill and my fingers are so frozen from this cold that they're not working.

When I mean that something is "not Biblical", I don't mean that in the sense that the Bible is the only standard for truth. It's not. What I mean is, don't ascribe something to the Bible that isn't there, take it for what it is, and be knowledgable about what it is. Don't add your interpretations to it to fit your agenda. Few people know how to do that.
Each one has to find his peace from within. And peace to be real must be unaffected by outside circumstances. -Ghandi
_MormonMendacity
_Emeritus
Posts: 405
Joined: Wed Nov 15, 2006 12:56 am

Post by _MormonMendacity »

GIMR wrote:Hey MM,

Quick thought. I'm getting ill and my fingers are so frozen from this cold that they're not working.

When I mean that something is "not Biblical", I don't mean that in the sense that the Bible is the only standard for truth. It's not. What I mean is, don't ascribe something to the Bible that isn't there, take it for what it is, and be knowledgable about what it is. Don't add your interpretations to it to fit your agenda. Few people know how to do that.

Hope you feel better.

I agree completely. I was extending your "wanna talk about the Bible" a little beyond your initial comments to what "*I* want to talk about the Bible!"
"Suppose we've chosen the wrong god. Every time we go to church we're just making him madder and madder" --Homer Simpson's version of Pascal's Wager
Religion began when the first scoundrel met the first fool.
Religion is ignorance reduced to a system.
_Sam Harris
_Emeritus
Posts: 2261
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 2:35 am

Post by _Sam Harris »

Feeling a bit better, thanks. Grateful that my first day of work went so well, and praying that this might be a place where I can stay for a while. The salary ain't that bad...and it's near places I can work part time if I don't keep my nanny job...

Your questions intrigue me. Perhaps we can expand. I'd like to keep the topic on the Bible itself for Jason, as he was the one who asked for a debate, but if you have other thoughts, spill!

I have a book at home I got from the library bookstore that I want to read someday soon. It's called Seven Masters, One Path. Ever heard of it? I like the books by Rabbi Harold Kushner, as well.
Each one has to find his peace from within. And peace to be real must be unaffected by outside circumstances. -Ghandi
_Quantumwave
_Emeritus
Posts: 79
Joined: Mon Nov 06, 2006 6:35 pm

Wanna Talk About the Bible?

Post by _Quantumwave »

Hi GIMR,

My veiw of the Bible is probably not what you want, but it seems there isn’t that much interest in discussing Bible issues since the last post on this thread is over a week old, so I thought I might liven it up with some controversy!

My general assessment of the Bible is, it is a conglomeration of stories similar in nature to the works of James Michener. As you no doubt know, Michener’s books weave fictional stories and characters into a central theme of history.

The main difference I find is Michener’s books are rational, and almost believable where authors of the Bible resort to threats, atrocities and miracles performed by their “God”, which takes on a flavor of mythology.

Once the reader gets past the creation, garden of Eden, men living multiple-centuries, world flood and tower of Babel, this guy Abraham comes on the scene and the stories become a little more credible.

But the problem with the credibility of the Abrahamic stories is the long delay between purported activity and recording of the events. Biblical scholars say that if Abraham lived, it would have been around two millennia BC. (I’m too lazy to provide a quote, but if pushed, I can) Also, the time these stories began to be recorded by the Hebrew scribes is said to be around the tenth or eleventh centuries BC, extending to around 100 BC.

This means the Hebrew scribes were writing stories about the Abraham characters about 1000 years after the fact, so how can anyone be expected to believe such detail as:

Genesis 12:
1 NOW the LORD had said unto Abram, Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father's house, unto a land that I will shew thee:

2 And I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy name great; and thou shalt be a blessing:

3 And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed.

These are word-for-word quotes that are about 1000 years old. This is only possible with on-the-spot recording such as stenographic or audio. OK, there are other explanations such as oral tradition and “word of God”, but both of those scenarios are based on wishful thinking, in my opinion.

The accuracy of these word-for-word quotes would not last a week without a recording. In fact, word-for-word quotes found anywhere in the Bible are not credible and stories handed down orally for centuries would certainly be fiction.

Religionists like to talk about the “promised land”, or the land promised to the “seed of Abraham”, but all this amounts to is the Hebrew scribes reinforcing their elitist status by coming up with the “elect of God” theory.

The described land ended up being occupied by Semite people. That is a fact. However, the information provides evidence that the claim that the people are the actual posterity of Abraham is highly doubtful. The ancient scribes, with their “god-did-it” mind set would certainly attribute that “God” promised a swath of land to the progeny of an ancient ancestor of the Hebrews and Arabs since this same land just happens to be occupied at the time the story was written by these very people. The actual existence of the character named Abraham is very unlikely since the record is based on centuries of handed-down oral accounts, originated to provide a sense of community and elitism for the people. To assume these detailed accounts are actual history is a real stretch.

This same argument of extended time delay and quotes of monologue or dialigue can be applied extensively to the Bible in general. The many word-for-word quotes of Jesus are highly suspect when the situation is evaluated realistically.
_Sam Harris
_Emeritus
Posts: 2261
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 2:35 am

Re: Wanna Talk About the Bible?

Post by _Sam Harris »

Quantumwave wrote:Hi GIMR,

My veiw of the Bible is probably not what you want, but it seems there isn’t that much interest in discussing Bible issues since the last post on this thread is over a week old, so I thought I might liven it up with some controversy!


Please do not make any assumptions on what I want, as I view the Bible in a very liberal light. Just bring your thoughts to the table. I brought this discussion out because of a gentleman who tried to spark a debate that he hasn't yet participated in. Another person gave his what I like to call "mormonized view" of the Bible, and in time I'll address his view, but it's been a busy two weeks for me.

My general assessment of the Bible is, it is a conglomeration of stories similar in nature to the works of James Michener. As you no doubt know, Michener’s books weave fictional stories and characters into a central theme of history.


The Old Testament manual that I just finished reading had a theory not too far from your own. However, research shows that some of the stories of the Old Testament do and could have a historical base. I feel that viewing the Bible in a literal light does great damage to what you are reading.

The main difference I find is Michener’s books are rational, and almost believable where authors of the Bible resort to threats, atrocities and miracles performed by their “God”, which takes on a flavor of mythology.


I think study of the culture of the Bible would explain the literary aspect of it. Have you ever heard of a "taunt song"? How about a "lament psalm"? How about the "retribution principle"? Knowledge of what these things are, would explain why the Bible can come across as being so harsh at times. I was shocked to read a wish of sorts in the psalms, that the children of the antagonists have their brains dashed against stones, and a report in Kings of pregnant women being cut open. Obviously such behavior is not accpetable today. One must look to the culture of the Near East to understand the presence of these alarming things.

I don't see the Bible as all historical fact, but I don't see it as complete fiction either.

Once the reader gets past the creation, garden of Eden, men living multiple-centuries, world flood and tower of Babel, this guy Abraham comes on the scene and the stories become a little more credible.


Again, I think it is really unrealistic to take an "either or" approach to the Bible.

But the problem with the credibility of the Abrahamic stories is the long delay between purported activity and recording of the events. Biblical scholars say that if Abraham lived, it would have been around two millennia BC. (I’m too lazy to provide a quote, but if pushed, I can) Also, the time these stories began to be recorded by the Hebrew scribes is said to be around the tenth or eleventh centuries BC, extending to around 100 BC.


I had to do an Old Testament timeline as a final project, and it is true that Abraham lived around 2000 B.C., but there are many theories as to when his storie was written and by whom.

This means the Hebrew scribes were writing stories about the Abraham characters about 1000 years after the fact, so how can anyone be expected to believe such detail as:

Genesis 12:
1 NOW the LORD had said unto Abram, Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father's house, unto a land that I will shew thee:

2 And I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy name great; and thou shalt be a blessing:

3 And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed.

These are word-for-word quotes that are about 1000 years old. This is only possible with on-the-spot recording such as stenographic or audio. OK, there are other explanations such as oral tradition and “word of God”, but both of those scenarios are based on wishful thinking, in my opinion.


Sources, please. And are you aware of how the Old Testament canon became canon?

The accuracy of these word-for-word quotes would not last a week without a recording. In fact, word-for-word quotes found anywhere in the Bible are not credible and stories handed down orally for centuries would certainly be fiction.


Again, I think that an actual study of the Old Testament, and all the theories on how it came to be compiled would be helpful to you.

Religionists like to talk about the “promised land”, or the land promised to the “seed of Abraham”, but all this amounts to is the Hebrew scribes reinforcing their elitist status by coming up with the “elect of God” theory.


You are correct. The elect of God were not supposed to be some special group in the sense of being better than others, rather a group "set apart" by their behaviors, who were supposed to show the world God's love. You know, kind of like an ambassador. We've failed at this throughout history.

The described land ended up being occupied by Semite people. That is a fact. However, the information provides evidence that the claim that the people are the actual posterity of Abraham is highly doubtful. The ancient scribes, with their “god-did-it” mind set would certainly attribute that “God” promised a swath of land to the progeny of an ancient ancestor of the Hebrews and Arabs since this same land just happens to be occupied at the time the story was written by these very people. The actual existence of the character named Abraham is very unlikely since the record is based on centuries of handed-down oral accounts, originated to provide a sense of community and elitism for the people. To assume these detailed accounts are actual history is a real stretch.


Are you aware that there are many people who read and value the Bible who are not literalists?

This same argument of extended time delay and quotes of monologue or dialigue can be applied extensively to the Bible in general. The many word-for-word quotes of Jesus are highly suspect when the situation is evaluated realistically.


Your thoughts are hardly controversial to me. However your words do seem to hold the Bible in a bit of distaste. May I ask why? Did you have a bad experience with religionists? You see, I did too, however I came to a different conclusion about the Bible than you. I'd like to compare and contrast if you feel comfortable.
Last edited by consiglieri on Wed Jan 17, 2007 9:11 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Each one has to find his peace from within. And peace to be real must be unaffected by outside circumstances. -Ghandi
_Sam Harris
_Emeritus
Posts: 2261
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 2:35 am

Re: Bible studies

Post by _Sam Harris »

Gazelam wrote:Thanks for starting this thread GIMR. This promises to be really interesting. I spent alot of time last year discussing scripture with a Born Again Christian, I even took a study cource (And half another one) with him at his church (part of the Calvery Chapel chain). it was really interesting. How far into your Fathers faith did you get, did you say he was Jewish?

On to your questions:

1. "......how do you see the Bible? To me, there is no wrong answer to this question."

Scripture is the spirit of prophecyt in its recorded form. its our textbook in how the Spirit of Prophecy functions. when we familiarize ourselves with its Spirit, we gain insight into the mind and wil of the Lord. That is why we must always pray and ask for the direction of the Holy Ghost before we study. Many , if not most, of the founding revelations of our dispensation were born in scriptural study. By studying James Joseph was lead to the sacred grove. By studying the Book of Mormon passages about Baptism, Joseph and Oliver were led to John the Baptist and the sesquehannah river. Jospeh F. Smith was studying the scriptures when he received his revelation concerning the redemption of the dead.

2. "....do you see a theme in Old Testament? How do you feel about the idea of the Old Testament being a testament of Christ from beginning to end? If you think that it is, what brought you to that conclusion?"

I think Christ himself expressed for us just the way we should view the Old Testament.

John 8:56-59
56 Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad.
57 Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham?
58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.
59 Then took they up stones to cast at him: but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by

It was Christ who spoke to Moses from the bush, saying, tell them I AM hath sent you (Exodus 3:13-14) With this in mind, the Old Testament becomes much clearer. And also we gain further understanding of the relationship between the Father, Son, And us. View these scriptures in relation to John 17:19-23.

3. "There are some who feel that the Old Testament and New Testament are not interrelated. How do you feel about this?" see above.

4. "The writers of the New Testament, and the authors of the four Gospels especially, how do you feel about their writings? Have you read any of the Gnostic Gospels? What do you think of them? "

In following the writings, there is alot to be said in seing the progression of the apostles. The growth they go through as they take in the teachings and apply them. Its unfortunate that there are so many gaps in the stories, particularly concerning the rearing of Christ and his formative years. We get a brief mention of this in the Doctrine and Covenants, but I think we could learn alot if we had the full story, or just a few examples even.

Concerning the gnostic Gospel, I've been exposed to them primarily through Hugh Nibleys writeings. He draws alot of great insights from them. He states that The Pastor of Hermas should probably be canonized. Does that count as gnostic, or Apocryphal?

A few links:
http://farms.BYU.edu/display.php?table=transcripts&id=57
http://farms.BYU.edu/display.php?table=transcripts&id=59

5. "Was the Council of Nicea truly the first time anyone agreed on the complete biblical canon? How was the Hebrew Bible decided upon?"

I found a great website on that subject, I've had it on my favorites list for a long time now. http://www.ntcanon.org/index.shtml

6. The idea of Temple worship in the early Christian church, where is the evidence for this?

One of the first questions that Clement, the ardent investigator, puts to Peter is, "shall those be wholly deprived of the kingdom of heaven who died before Christ's coming?" To this the apostle gives a most significant answer: he assures Clement that the people in question are not damned and never will be, and explains that provision has been made for their salvation, but this, he says, is "as far as we are allowed to declare these things," excusing himself from telling more: "you compel me, O Clement, to touch upon things which we are forbidden to discuss." (Clementine Recognitions I, 52, in PG 1:1236.)

There is that doctrine of secrecy that people often oppose when speaking out against the church. Temple ordinances are sacred, and so we find scant mention of them in the scriptures.

1 Corinthians 15 is Pauls great discource on the resurrection and its relevence to us all. He brings into this doscource the fact that all those born here will be resurrected and the need for baptism to seal the name of Christ upon us all. 1 Cor 15:29.

Tied to this is what made baptism for the dead possible. 1 Peter 3:18-20 states
18 For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:
19 By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison;
20 Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water. (On a side note, notice the testimony of a global flood and of the work Noah did)

and the following shortly after: 1 Peter 4:6 " For for this cause was the gospel preached also to them that are dead, that they might be judged according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit."

The understanding that redemption for the dead had been taught by Christ, the authority given to seal on earth and in heaven (Matt 16:13-20) That they used this authority is certain, since the doctrine is expressed. And this work was done in Temples, even a temporary one such as they would have used.

further reading: http://farms.BYU.edu/display.php?table=transcripts&id=67

Gaz


Gaz, can you please remove the FARMS mess? They're not peer reviewed.
Each one has to find his peace from within. And peace to be real must be unaffected by outside circumstances. -Ghandi
Post Reply