| Author | Thread |
|
|
05/02/2012 08:29:13 PM · #1 |
Late night so I won't comment much but I'll address a couple of thoughts.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Matthew:
o. Religious constructs provide power (to those who want power) and comfort (for those who need comfort) and answers to mysteries (for those with curiosity salved by simple solutions) - people are drawn in as a result of these biological needs. |
I don't really doubt this on some level, but I'd say it is, as I said, quite cynical to consider this the raison d'etre of religion and not consider it the same for other systems. Democracy could be said to provide all of the above too. Or science. Or nearly any worldview. What is the reasoning behind exclusively viewing religion through this lens? |
Not really - taking your examples I'd say that religious systems embrace, rely upon and exploit human frailties, whereas democracy and science try to overcome them.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Matthew:
o. It doesn't actually matter too much what the detail of the religion says (though if it is vague and broadly in line with current social morality it helps): most people will selectively read/adopt any religious text to reflect their own morality anyway. For that reason, a religion will seem obviously right and natural to its adherents. |
This is most assuredly wrong. Judeo-Christianity, as an example, changed the moral compass of the western world to one nearly opposite from before. Tacitus, in his history, lists a number of Jewish "moral perversions" and included among those he found particularly "sinister and revolting" was the fact that, "it is a deadly sin to kill an unwanted child." We value life profoundly enough that it is now infanticide that is deemed sinister and revolting, the exact opposite conviction. Surely the protection of infants cannot be deemed to be "broadly in line" with popular thinking of the time.
Your statement can also be shown to miss the mark on purely logical grounds. If all religions are vague and broadly in line with current social morality, why all the purported religious strife? Why does one religion look very different from another? If we're all just drawing water from the well of common morality, then you'd think we'd arrive at relatively undifferentiated results. |
Using the example of Christianity, you must surely have come across a wide variety of attitudes on the the existence of exceptions, or the relative importance of religious rules surrounding the distribution of wealth, homosexuality, working on the sabbath, suicide, eating certain foodstuffs, wearing of certain clothes, matrimonial fidelity etc? The fact that some religions (like Christianity) have many sometimes conflicting rules makes it all the easier for almost any position to be claimed for either side of a dispute (even on some big topics like slavery).
On many deeper topics there are fundamental similarities (don't kill, be charitable, worship god). But people like fighting over inconsequential details. Most of the big truths don't vary from religion to religion (killing, stealing, infidelity etc).
Message edited by author 2012-05-02 20:30:07. |
|
|
|
05/01/2012 07:42:19 PM · #2 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
... The faith does have enough wiggle room to remain relevant to society over thousands of years and yet its core remains unchanged. |
... relevant to whose society?
If indeed what you are advocating here is true, then one would think that the faithful would strive to adhere to the tenets of the church, something which could be the subject of rather lengthy discussion both in Europe and North America.
Relevant yes, but is that something that will prevail... only time will tell.
Ray |
|
|
|
05/01/2012 07:36:15 PM · #3 |
Originally posted by CJinCA:
But all Christians were Roman Catholic until Luther "left" the church. |
I know what you are trying to say, but it isn't quite historically true. The first real split in the church was 500 years earlier between Eastern Orthodox and the Western Church (which then became "Roman Catholic" meaning they followed the leadership in Rome).
You have smaller splits even earlier. Coptic Christians (in the news these days due to persecution in Egypt) became distinct in 451AD.
Anyway, many people do yearn for a truly catholic church. Being human, however, we like to squabble over smaller differences rather than seeing that we agree on the big things. |
|
|
|
05/01/2012 06:59:49 PM · #4 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by CJinCA:
I always wondered why all the other "Christian" religions didn't drift back to the Catholic Religion. After all, that's where all the "Creeds" came from isn't it? Matthew 16:18 "And I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church........." :-) |
Well, we never left the catholic (the word meaning "universal") church. It's the Catholic church some people have some disagreements with. The Apostles' Creed, however, is held by both Catholics and Protestants. I'm not positive about Eastern Orthodox, but I'll ask my friend who is a member of that sect. |
But all Christians were Roman Catholic until Luther "left" the church. |
|
|
|
05/01/2012 06:42:04 PM · #5 |
Originally posted by CJinCA:
I always wondered why all the other "Christian" religions didn't drift back to the Catholic Religion. After all, that's where all the "Creeds" came from isn't it? Matthew 16:18 "And I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church........." :-) |
Well, we never left the catholic (the word meaning "universal") church. It's the Catholic church some people have some disagreements with. The Apostles' Creed, however, is held by both Catholics and Protestants. I'm not positive about Eastern Orthodox, but I'll ask my friend who is a member of that sect.
Message edited by author 2012-05-01 18:42:26. |
|
|
|
05/01/2012 05:59:01 PM · #6 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
I could be wrong (and if I am, I hope Matthew will correct me), but when I read his statement above I immediately thought of two examples that illustrate his point, the first being Paul Ryan justifying, on the ground of his Catholicism, his budget cuts to programs for the poor, and the second example being some evangelical groups justifying, on the ground of God's word, the accumulation of great wealth. |
Oh, I don't doubt it goes on. I've seen it happen plenty of times. However, I think this is a low-level smouldering and does not represent a large force in shaping religion. Probably the randomness of individual interpretation pulls in all directions and so cancels itself out on a larger scale. Just last week I was having a conversation with some fellow intellectual Christians and we discussed the paradoxical idea that Christianity is both made up of thousands of splinter groups (ie. denominations) and yet creeds which were written literally nearly two thousand years ago (e.g. The Apostles Creed) are still held and endorsed by the vast majority of Christians today. Personally I see this as part of "the plan". The faith does have enough wiggle room to remain relevant to society over thousands of years and yet its core remains unchanged. |
I always wondered why all the other "Christian" religions didn't drift back to the Catholic Religion. After all, that's where all the "Creeds" came from isn't it? Matthew 16:18 "And I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church........." :-) |
|
|
|
05/01/2012 01:39:47 PM · #7 |
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
I could be wrong (and if I am, I hope Matthew will correct me), but when I read his statement above I immediately thought of two examples that illustrate his point, the first being Paul Ryan justifying, on the ground of his Catholicism, his budget cuts to programs for the poor, and the second example being some evangelical groups justifying, on the ground of God's word, the accumulation of great wealth. |
Oh, I don't doubt it goes on. I've seen it happen plenty of times. However, I think this is a low-level smouldering and does not represent a large force in shaping religion. Probably the randomness of individual interpretation pulls in all directions and so cancels itself out on a larger scale. Just last week I was having a conversation with some fellow intellectual Christians and we discussed the paradoxical idea that Christianity is both made up of thousands of splinter groups (ie. denominations) and yet creeds which were written literally nearly two thousand years ago (e.g. The Apostles Creed) are still held and endorsed by the vast majority of Christians today. Personally I see this as part of "the plan". The faith does have enough wiggle room to remain relevant to society over thousands of years and yet its core remains unchanged. |
|
|
|
05/01/2012 01:10:55 PM · #8 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by posthumous:
You said "changed the moral compass." Infanticide is just a wedge issue. |
Well, in this issue it undeniably did. North became south. The idea stands counter to Matthew's idea that religion just sprouts from the common moral soup of society. |
ok, I interpret "moral compass" as a very big thing, you know, like switching the poles on the globe. But if you want to say religion can change the morality on a specific issue, fine. Yes, it can. But Judeo-Christianity did not sprout from the Roman Empire. Judaism sprouted from the Levant and was indistinguishable from their "moral soup." It later got mixed up with Greece's "moral soup" as it split into Diaspora Judaism and Christianity. Then it imposed itself on the Roman Empire through an extremely successful campaign of "convincing the rest of us that they have it all figured out"
|
|
|
|
05/01/2012 10:15:49 AM · #9 |
Originally posted by Matthew:
o. It doesn't actually matter too much what the detail of the religion says (though if it is vague and broadly in line with current social morality it helps): most people will selectively read/adopt any religious text to reflect their own morality anyway. For that reason, a religion will seem obviously right and natural to its adherents. |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
This is most assuredly wrong. Judeo-Christianity, as an example, changed the moral compass of the western world to one nearly opposite from before. Tacitus, in his history, lists a number of Jewish "moral perversions" and included among those he found particularly "sinister and revolting" was the fact that, "it is a deadly sin to kill an unwanted child." We value life profoundly enough that it is now infanticide that is deemed sinister and revolting, the exact opposite conviction. Surely the protection of infants cannot be deemed to be "broadly in line" with popular thinking of the time.
Your statement can also be shown to miss the mark on purely logical grounds. If all religions are vague and broadly in line with current social morality, why all the purported religious strife? Why does one religion look very different from another? If we're all just drawing water from the well of common morality, then you'd think we'd arrive at relatively undifferentiated results. |
I could be wrong (and if I am, I hope Matthew will correct me), but when I read his statement above I immediately thought of two examples that illustrate his point, the first being Paul Ryan justifying, on the ground of his Catholicism, his budget cuts to programs for the poor, and the second example being some evangelical groups justifying, on the ground of God's word, the accumulation of great wealth. |
|
|
|
05/01/2012 12:28:30 AM · #10 |
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
Matthew said IF the religion is vague and etc., not that ALL religions ARE vague and etc.
|
Thanks Judith. I actually missed that little word. Well, if he's not saying this, then I don't have a problem, but then he doesn't have much of a point. The infanticide example still stands to show that Christianity was not morphed by the common Greco-Roman practice but rather stood and changed society from the inside out. Newly converted Romans didn't just co-opt Christianity to support exposing infants.
Message edited by author 2012-05-01 00:29:25. |
|
|
|
05/01/2012 12:23:01 AM · #11 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by posthumous:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Judeo-Christianity, as an example, changed the moral compass of the western world to one nearly opposite from before. |
You'll need more than a quote from Tacitus to support such a ludicrous statement.
|
Just to ask, which part don't you buy:
1) The society of the day felt infanticide was moroal and acceptable.
2) We now reject infanticide in the Western world.
3) Judeo-Cristianity was the impetus for the change.
It's not a ludicrous supposition at all. The only thing you might object to is my statement sounds a little broader than I intended. It didn't change ALL Roman society, but it did change this part rather than being a product of the surrounding society. |
You said "changed the moral compass." Infanticide is just a wedge issue. |
Well, in this issue it undeniably did. North became south. The idea stands counter to Matthew's idea that religion just sprouts from the common moral soup of society. |
|
|
|
05/01/2012 12:21:34 AM · #12 |
Originally posted by Matthew:
o. Religious constructs provide power (to those who want power) and comfort (for those who need comfort) and answers to mysteries (for those with curiosity salved by simple solutions) - people are drawn in as a result of these biological needs. |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I don't really doubt this on some level, but I'd say it is, as I said, quite cynical to consider this the raison d'etre of religion and not consider it the same for other systems. Democracy could be said to provide all of the above too. Or science. Or nearly any worldview. What is the reasoning behind exclusively viewing religion through this lens? |
I don't believe Matthew said that any of those functions of religion was its raison d'etre. Also, you're attributing an exclusivity to his statement about religion (that it is unique in those functions) that is not obviously implied.
Democracy provides comfort and simple answers to mysteries? How so?
Originally posted by Matthew:
o. It doesn't actually matter too much what the detail of the religion says (though if it is vague and broadly in line with current social morality it helps): most people will selectively read/adopt any religious text to reflect their own morality anyway. For that reason, a religion will seem obviously right and natural to its adherents. |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
This is most assuredly wrong. Judeo-Christianity, as an example, changed the moral compass of the western world to one nearly opposite from before. Tacitus, in his history, lists a number of Jewish "moral perversions" and included among those he found particularly "sinister and revolting" was the fact that, "it is a deadly sin to kill an unwanted child." We value life profoundly enough that it is now infanticide that is deemed sinister and revolting, the exact opposite conviction. Surely the protection of infants cannot be deemed to be "broadly in line" with popular thinking of the time.
Your statement can also be shown to miss the mark on purely logical grounds. If all religions are vague and broadly in line with current social morality, why all the purported religious strife? Why does one religion look very different from another? If we're all just drawing water from the well of common morality, then you'd think we'd arrive at relatively undifferentiated results. |
Matthew said IF the religion is vague and etc., not that ALL religions ARE vague and etc.
Originally posted by Matthew:
You can come up with your own view of life (effectively, your personal religion) but you shouldn't be surprised that it is poorly respected by those who align themselves with an established religion for these reasons. |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Isn't this somewhat contradictory to your statement #3? If we all pull from a common morality, why do we assume the personal view of life is going to be faced with animosity from established religions? |
Where did he say that we all "pull from a common morality"?
|
|
|
|
05/01/2012 12:04:05 AM · #13 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by posthumous:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Judeo-Christianity, as an example, changed the moral compass of the western world to one nearly opposite from before. |
You'll need more than a quote from Tacitus to support such a ludicrous statement.
|
Just to ask, which part don't you buy:
1) The society of the day felt infanticide was moroal and acceptable.
2) We now reject infanticide in the Western world.
3) Judeo-Cristianity was the impetus for the change.
It's not a ludicrous supposition at all. The only thing you might object to is my statement sounds a little broader than I intended. It didn't change ALL Roman society, but it did change this part rather than being a product of the surrounding society. |
You said "changed the moral compass." Infanticide is just a wedge issue. |
|
|
|
04/30/2012 11:46:39 PM · #14 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Judeo-Christianity, as an example, changed the moral compass of the western world to one nearly opposite from before. |
You'll need more than a quote from Tacitus to support such a ludicrous statement.
|
Just to ask, which part don't you buy:
1) The society of the day felt infanticide was moroal and acceptable.
2) We now reject infanticide in the Western world.
3) Judeo-Cristianity was the impetus for the change.
It's not a ludicrous supposition at all. The only thing you might object to is my statement sounds a little broader than I intended. It didn't change ALL Roman society, but it did change this part rather than being a product of the surrounding society. |
|
|
|
04/30/2012 06:53:05 PM · #15 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
I remember Jason in a thread trying to put forth the idea that without some sort of God system that there was no possibility for any sense of morality. |
This is a misquote. The argument was about an objective morality. I have never ever argued that non-religious people don't have moral systems. |
I wish I had the time... I seem to recall you saying something to the effect that Atheists by their very nature were immoral, or was it amoral...I forget.
Ray |
I don't think Jason has ever come out and said it, but it's hard not to come to that conclusion based on what he's said in the past. For example he has argued that atheism lacks a moral compass and has questioned where atheists get their morality from. While he does seem to acknowledge the existence of more than one moral system, the impression I get is that they all stem from religion. He also rejects moral relativism, calling himself a moral universalist, but it seems like he's more of a moral absolutist. If so it doesn't really leave much room for the atheist to exist on the same moral footing as the theist in his world view.
|
|
|
|
04/30/2012 06:15:03 PM · #16 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Matthew:
It isn't really all that complicated - there are some fairly basic forces at work:
o. Religious constructs provide power (to those who want power) and comfort (for those who need comfort) and answers to mysteries (for those with curiosity salved by simple solutions) - people are drawn in as a result of these biological needs. |
I don't really doubt this on some level, but I'd say it is, as I said, quite cynical to consider this the raison d'etre of religion and not consider it the same for other systems. Democracy could be said to provide all of the above too. Or science. Or nearly any worldview. What is the reasoning behind exclusively viewing religion through this lens?
|
some fairly basic forces -
the first in this list being -
thus, not exclusive |
|
|
|
04/30/2012 05:26:02 PM · #17 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Judeo-Christianity, as an example, changed the moral compass of the western world to one nearly opposite from before. |
You'll need more than a quote from Tacitus to support such a ludicrous statement.
Originally posted by sneezy:
Your statement can also be shown to miss the mark on purely logical grounds. If all religions are vague and broadly in line with current social morality, why all the purported religious strife? Why does one religion look very different from another? If we're all just drawing water from the well of common morality, then you'd think we'd arrive at relatively undifferentiated results. |
Most religious strife is between religions with almost indistinguishable moralities, like Judaism and Islam, or Sunnism and Shiism, or Catholic and Protestant.
|
|
|
|
04/30/2012 04:47:26 PM · #18 |
This isn't meant to counter your post by implying that what you say is false, but I wanted to at least provide some balance to temper your response which is a very cynical (in the true sense of the word) approach to religion.
Originally posted by Matthew:
It isn't really all that complicated - there are some fairly basic forces at work:
o. Religious constructs provide power (to those who want power) and comfort (for those who need comfort) and answers to mysteries (for those with curiosity salved by simple solutions) - people are drawn in as a result of these biological needs. |
I don't really doubt this on some level, but I'd say it is, as I said, quite cynical to consider this the raison d'etre of religion and not consider it the same for other systems. Democracy could be said to provide all of the above too. Or science. Or nearly any worldview. What is the reasoning behind exclusively viewing religion through this lens?
Originally posted by Matthew:
o. It is much easier to work within an established system than to create a new one (there are few modern religions, like Scientology - the barriers to entry for new religions are increasingly high). |
I don't have an issue with this.
Originally posted by Matthew:
o. It doesn't actually matter too much what the detail of the religion says (though if it is vague and broadly in line with current social morality it helps): most people will selectively read/adopt any religious text to reflect their own morality anyway. For that reason, a religion will seem obviously right and natural to its adherents. |
This is most assuredly wrong. Judeo-Christianity, as an example, changed the moral compass of the western world to one nearly opposite from before. Tacitus, in his history, lists a number of Jewish "moral perversions" and included among those he found particularly "sinister and revolting" was the fact that, "it is a deadly sin to kill an unwanted child." We value life profoundly enough that it is now infanticide that is deemed sinister and revolting, the exact opposite conviction. Surely the protection of infants cannot be deemed to be "broadly in line" with popular thinking of the time.
Your statement can also be shown to miss the mark on purely logical grounds. If all religions are vague and broadly in line with current social morality, why all the purported religious strife? Why does one religion look very different from another? If we're all just drawing water from the well of common morality, then you'd think we'd arrive at relatively undifferentiated results.
Originally posted by Matthew:
o. For a religion to sustain itself it must maintain or increase its number of adherents - so recruitment and indoctrination are critical: only the fittest memes survive (witness the multitude of dead religions). Only religions that are good at sustaining themselves will have survived. |
Once again this statement is so broad as to have any worldview qualify, secular or religious. Again, see democracy. Do any positive or negative ramifications of this idea apply equally to both religion and democracy? If they don't you will not be able to differentiate by this idea alone.
Originally posted by Matthew:
You can come up with your own view of life (effectively, your personal religion) but you shouldn't be surprised that it is poorly respected by those who align themselves with an established religion for these reasons. |
Isn't this somewhat contradictory to your statement #3? If we all pull from a common morality, why do we assume the personal view of life is going to be faced with animosity from established religions?
Originally posted by Matthew:
You should also be unsurprised that your personal religion is poorly respected by science: science is the direct opposite of a personal religion because science is a mechanism by which many people can collaborate to find trustworthy answers to mysteries that are beyond any one person or any one human lifetime. |
It is much better to consider religion and science as different spheres instead of being antithetical views within the same sphere. We run into trouble when we use religion to answer questions of science, but we most assuredly also run into trouble when we use science to answer questions of religion (namely ones of morality).
Again, don't read my post as a broad frontal attack on your statements, but rather as one seeking to take the sharp edges off your view.
Message edited by author 2012-04-30 16:49:55. |
|
|
|
04/30/2012 04:12:16 PM · #19 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
Most of Jeb's questions are rhetorical, but great answers nonetheless. |
No kidding. Round of applause is called for here.
|
|
|
|
04/30/2012 02:14:30 PM · #20 |
| Most of Jeb's questions are rhetorical, but great answers nonetheless. |
|
|
|
04/30/2012 02:10:47 PM · #21 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
It just seems nuts to me that in all the machinations and workings of people over the years that certain groups band together, decide they have it all figured out, then spend their lives trying to convince the rest of us that they have the answer to it all.
How does that happen? Especially when in order for any of these groups to support their answer, they have to convince others to believe in something that cannot be proven, or in most cases for that matter, have not one shred of tangible evidence to support their stories.
Honestly, I don't get it.......I have my own ideas about things, but I'll be damned if I'd try and make someone else believe my way of looking at life. |
It isn't really all that complicated - there are some fairly basic forces at work:
o. Religious constructs provide power (to those who want power) and comfort (for those who need comfort) and answers to mysteries (for those with curiosity salved by simple solutions) - people are drawn in as a result of these biological needs.
o. It is much easier to work within an established system than to create a new one (there are few modern religions, like Scientology - the barriers to entry for new religions are increasingly high).
o. It doesn't actually matter too much what the detail of the religion says (though if it is vague and broadly in line with current social morality it helps): most people will selectively read/adopt any religious text to reflect their own morality anyway. For that reason, a religion will seem obviously right and natural to its adherents.
o. For a religion to sustain itself it must maintain or increase its number of adherents - so recruitment and indoctrination are critical: only the fittest memes survive (witness the multitude of dead religions). Only religions that are good at sustaining themselves will have survived.
You can come up with your own view of life (effectively, your personal religion) but you shouldn't be surprised that it is poorly respected by those who align themselves with an established religion for these reasons.
You should also be unsurprised that your personal religion is poorly respected by science: science is the direct opposite of a personal religion because science is a mechanism by which many people can collaborate to find trustworthy answers to mysteries that are beyond any one person or any one human lifetime.
So it is entirely comprehensible that your own ideas should be poorly respected by people operating from established religious or scientific agendas.
Won't necessarily make you feel better about it, but it is comprehensible...
|
|
|
|
04/22/2012 01:09:50 PM · #22 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Hoping this will open up some of the folks for whom the whole religious thing gets overwhelming......
From where I sit, it's pretty simple. I don't have the answers, I just want to go through life being the most decent and caring individual that I'm capable of being. I see lots of goodness and beauty in life; I also see lots of sadness and horror. I don't necessarily think life is random, but I also don't necessarily have some concept of a supreme whatever at the helm. I simply don't know, and I really don't have to have an answer to go to sleep at night.
I believe that the human critter is fascinating, wonderful, beautiful, complex, scary, and ugly on many levels. But I also feel, at least for me, that life is all about choices, and what life is to you is the result of those choices.
I choose to believe in the basic good of the critter, in all its variations, and I am excited by the prospect that each and every day I will discover something new about my brethren.
What I really try to do is to learn, honor, and respect my fellow man's persona, without any need whatsoever to try to tell him/her how to live.
It just seems nuts to me that in all the machinations and workings of people over the years that certain groups band together, decide they have it all figured out, then spend their lives trying to convince the rest of us that they have the answer to it all.
How does that happen? Especially when in order for any of these groups to support their answer, they have to convince others to believe in something that cannot be proven, or in most cases for that matter, have not one shred of tangible evidence to support their stories.
Honestly, I don't get it.......I have my own ideas about things, but I'll be damned if I'd try and make someone else believe my way of looking at life. |
Jeb,
I have had you on my mind since you posted this. I didn't reply because I had no idea what to say to you. The answer came To me with the death of Chuck Colson, one of Nixon's hatchetmen. He read a book in prison that changed his life, CS Lewis "Mere Christianity". I have read this book, and I think it will answer many of your questions in a logical and undeniable way. It is so challenging and satisfying that you can't help but say "wow" when you realize the answers are completely simple. Pickup or download a copy of the book. You won't regret it. Would love to know what you think about it.
Mike
|
|
|
|
04/20/2012 08:17:48 PM · #23 |
Originally posted by Simms:
One of the odd couple turned up at least.. |
Sorry to see you are all alone. :O)
Ray |
|
|
|
04/19/2012 08:04:35 PM · #24 |
| One of the odd couple turned up at least.. |
|
|
|
04/19/2012 05:43:30 AM · #25 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
If we narrow it down to searching for "amoral" and "DrAchoo" we only have to go through 11420 posts! That's not too bad. Ask Ray to do it. He thinks the same thing. |
\
At post #41 I did say "I wish I had the time"... but if I do find the time I will definitely look for it... and yes I do think the same thing, because I was and remain convinced that you did say it.
If I do find it and am proven to be wrong, then I will gladly offer my apologies.
Ray |
|
