|
Ceciltron posted:I dream of the day when the halls and temples of Mammon, and the altars to the Enemy's greed, shall be burned in righteous fire. When you put it that way, yes, I would like an all Phantom II recreation of Dresden bombing on Wall Street on a busy day. *Puts on pilot helmet with BORN TO KILL and a peace sign emblazoned on it* *Fortunate Son starts playing*
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2017 05:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 17:00 |
|
|
Josef bugman posted:And the reasons for their positions seem to be, at best, as anti-Christian as you can be without actively praising Satan. Don't forget that Bannon openly stated that he admired Satan for his power and actively tries to bring down the Pope. Josef bugman posted:At this point a "trickle" may be incorrect. Now we have things like "shame on your congregation if your pastor is poor" coming in I think it has become the deluge. What the gently caress, do you have any examples of this?
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2017 07:27
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I don't really see a strong argument for relying on voluntary charity when the need is there and people can be compelled to support their fellows. I don't think it's common for Christian conservatives to oppose all state welfare, it's just that you can really argue about what is necessary. Most people are OK with things like publicly funded basic medical care for the elderly, or making sure people have basic food and shelter. But resources aren't unlimited, and if the state wants to spend money on something, it has to extract it from somewhere else first (or later). So you basically have two options, either you make the state responsible for welfare that aims at basically giving everybody a high living standard, which means you have to put a high tax burden on working people at the same time that you also make "not working" a more attractive option, or you give the basic welfare that allows for social peace and say that people who want to get or give more than that can do so on their own initiative. In Catholic discourse, this is the idea of Subsidiarity, which means that things should be taken care of on as low a level as possible. So when you're poor, first you see if your family can help you, if not you see if your community will help you, then maybe some kind of regional government, and if that still does not work you rely on the state. I'm not necessarily endorsing this position, but I think it's a strong argument. HEY GAIL posted:my mother made $15 thousand the yer I went to college. Strong traditional families my rear end, the families of poor people are usually also poor To be fair, I think the "strong families" thing is more for disabled people, teen mothers, people who are unemployed for a few years, not so much for the poor. And it's not necessarily about a strong male provider either. My mom has a huge family, and if one of them wanted to take out a loan or needed a place to live rent-free while finishing their studies, they'd go to one of their eight siblings. Or I know a matriarchal family where three generations of women live under one roof and take care of each other when they're disabled or lose a job. System Metternich posted:Don't forget that Bannon openly stated that he admired Satan for his power and actively tries to bring down the Pope. Bannon and the alt-right are absolutely not who I'm talking about, I can't speak to their psychology but they do seem to do a lot of things out of spite. pidan fucked around with this message at 08:19 on Apr 12, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2017 08:15
|
|
|
The Phlegmatist posted:Yeah, generally the conservative evangelical line about slashing the social safety net is that it should be the domain of churches and charitable organizations rather than the government. It's difficult to reconcile that with declining church attendance (and therefore donations) though in many cases. Like they're pushing for an idealized society where the church takes care of everyone in need -- and we do a lot, don't get me wrong, our diocese has built two apartment complexes for migrant workers which I am really sure ICE is interested in now -- but realistically we don't have the resources necessary to help everyone in need, and it doesn't look like we're going to be getting them anytime soon. Please don't take this the wrong way, Phlegmatist - I think what your people is doing is extremely cool, and they are much better christians than a lot of the folks around here. But, seriously, charity standing alone does not work very well, and never really has. In the past it is judged to have sorta-worked, because there was nothing to compare it to, but especially in the industrial and post-industrial societies and forward, the failure of church contracts are glaring. Countries that tried to rely on it, like Greece, Italy and Spain, turned into horrorshows were old people die in droves and you have to live with your family till long after you get married, because gently caress having a right to your own home. Social security is not perfect, and I should know, having been a dependant of the state for some 20-odd years - but it's so much better than church charities in every way that counts. Tias fucked around with this message at 17:04 on Apr 12, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2017 08:29
|
|
|
System Metternich posted:What the gently caress, do you have any examples of this? I remember reading it somewhere a bit ago. It was one of those congregations where the owners (they aren't priests at this point in my opinion) had a private Jet. that and poo poo like this:http://uspoln.com/2017/03/14/pastor-garlow-god-doesnt-give-poor-people-money-medications-guess-dont-deserve/ pidan posted:I don't think it's common for Christian conservatives to oppose all state welfare, it's just that you can really argue about what is necessary. Most people are OK with things like publicly funded basic medical care for the elderly, or making sure people have basic food and shelter. But resources aren't unlimited, and if the state wants to spend money on something, it has to extract it from somewhere else first (or later). So you basically have two options, either you make the state responsible for welfare that aims at basically giving everybody a high living standard, which means you have to put a high tax burden on working people at the same time that you also make "not working" a more attractive option, or you give the basic welfare that allows for social peace and say that people who want to get or give more than that can do so on their own initiative. In response to the bolded section "Hahahahahahahaha". Also, why is work worthwhile? What are you producing that is so necessary? Resources may not be unlimited, but they could be apportioned far more equally by taking money from wealthy corporations and placing it in the hands of the suffering poor. Not working is something you probably can get away with, because more and more jobs are going to go the way of mechanisation and there is little we can do about it. More and more people are not going to be working as the next few decades move on. pidan posted:Bannon and the alt-right are absolutely not who I'm talking about, I can't speak to their psychology but they do seem to do a lot of things out of spite. To be honest a lot of "traditional" republicans are mainly voting out of spite. Josef bugman fucked around with this message at 11:49 on Apr 12, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2017 10:50
|
|
|
Meant to edit above post!
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2017 11:47
|
|
|
Every charity I've ever had any experience with (including some religious ones) has said that the government pulling out of their work would be an absolute disaster.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2017 11:48
|
|
|
The Phlegmatist posted:And not voting, I think? Maybe in some of the more isolationist Anabaptist-descended groups (Old Order Mennonites, the Amish, probably the Hutterites though I know almost nothing about them) but I don't feel like this has been a thing in the modern Mennonite church for a while now, certainly not a universal one. Although a bit of vague reading on the subject did lead me to this pretty awesome quote from a lady in Ohio: "When Mennonites vote, we are not voting for who we support to lead us. We are voting for who we would rather struggle against.".
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2017 11:58
|
|
|
docbeard posted:Every charity I've ever had any experience with (including some religious ones) has said that the government pulling out of their work would be an absolute disaster. The politicians in favor of government pulling out of charity work do not, as a rule, work for charities or ever have or have ever relied on charity.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2017 13:44
|
|
|
not working is much better than working, and the people who invented the opposite idea were Protestant. Why get influenced by their ideas, pidan? edit: rodrigo diaz knows more about this than i do, but the arguments you are quoting also rely on the un-christian idea of a distinction between the "deserving poor" (telegenic, people we agree with, no gays) and the "undeserving poor" (everyone else). that is also modern, and also wrong. HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 17:00 on Apr 12, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2017 16:56
|
|
|
Consider the lilies of the field. They clearly aren't pulling their weight.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2017 17:30
|
|
|
pidan posted:I don't think it's common for Christian conservatives to oppose all state welfare, it's just that you can really argue about what is necessary. Most people are OK with things like publicly funded basic medical care for the elderly, or making sure people have basic food and shelter. But resources aren't unlimited, and if the state wants to spend money on something, it has to extract it from somewhere else first (or later). So you basically have two options, either you make the state responsible for welfare that aims at basically giving everybody a high living standard, which means you have to put a high tax burden on working people at the same time that you also make "not working" a more attractive option, or you give the basic welfare that allows for social peace and say that people who want to get or give more than that can do so on their own initiative. I mean, my interpretation is that taxing the wealthy into at least moderate means and if some of the Bible is to believed, actual poverty, would presumably be doing them a solid, at least as far as their souls go. Plus there's that whole bit about anyone who doesn't care for those in need of food and shelter and clothing is going on the poo poo list come judgement day. So you presumably want to make sure as many people as possible are doing that. Good argument for lots of institutional welfare.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2017 18:30
|
|
|
Tax the rich until they're moderately wealthy at best!  I think universal basic income idea - if it's implemented and kept at decent levels instead falling victim to the next ellection cycle - would be something close to communism in a resource scarcity environment. And yeah, work can eat poo poo, especially when there are such useless parasite industries like health insurance brokers and people who find the most expensive price code for hospitals to use (the more you listen to Chapo...)
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2017 19:53
|
|
|
I think I'm gonna stay out of the charity discussion, because there's either some miscommunication here or the state / charity relationship is very different from what I imagined. But there's other things to respond to!Josef bugman posted:In response to the bolded section "Hahahahahahahaha". Also, why is work worthwhile? What are you producing that is so necessary? Resources may not be unlimited, but they could be apportioned far more equally by taking money from wealthy corporations and placing it in the hands of the suffering poor. Not working is something you probably can get away with, because more and more jobs are going to go the way of mechanisation and there is little we can do about it. More and more people are not going to be working as the next few decades move on. Well, people don't strictly speaking need money, they need food,  clothing,  housing  and entertainment  I guess you could argue people will produce entertainment just because they enjoy it, but if I'm laying asphalt or scrubbing toilets I better get some compensation. So that's the value of work. And if what you're saying is "why should I, a person from a rich country, work, when people from poor countries are available to do it for me", uh, that's kind of a weird attitude to have. Automation is a thing of course, but I think it has already peaked and the number of jobs that robots could do that they're not doing already is getting smaller. Not to mention that rising energy costs might make human labor more attractive again. Unless we're talking about some sort of post-singularity future, in which case we don't need to make any sort of social policy for that, because the benevolent AI will take care of it for us. HEY GAIL posted:not working is much better than working, and the people who invented the opposite idea were Protestant. Why get influenced by their ideas, pidan? I appreciate the appeal to my natural fear of Protestantism, but the people who were not working throughout history were people who had other people working for them. Slaveholders, feudal lords, heirs and people living off rent. Even the Benedictines have ora et labora, not just ora. I agree that the argument about which poor people "deserve" any given thing gets ugly, but unless your position is "give anybody anything they want" (and where are you going to get the things?) it's hard to avoid...
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2017 21:06
|
|
|
Well that's where industrialization kicks in, we've spend a lot of time and effort over the centuries learning to do more with less labour, and the flipside is that the value of labour has gone way down, labour is no longer skilled where possible, no longer meaningful, you are performing a task too fiddly for a machine, or you are assisting a machine in carrying out a task that it is uneconomical to train a human to do. There are exceptions but the trend overall is towards replaceability of individual labourers as you would any other part of the production machine. This increases output per unit of labour (generally) but at the cost of alienating the worker from both their task (work is unfulfilling) and the product of their work (you don't work for yourself, you work for the owner of the machinery and they get the product, you get as little as they can get away with paying you) There's nothing very theological about this post but I reject the notion that work is good pretty strongly. Work is only good if what it produces is good, if what it produces is rich people, it's not good work.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2017 21:54
|
|
|
In other news, my priest announced on Sunday that we (an ECUSA parish) will begin hosting an Armenian Orthodox priest who will be offering AO worship in English at a Monday night service. This is great, being in Glendale where the Armenian population is so high, and so many of them are a few years removed from their mother country. As I hear it, it will be the only English language Armenian Orthodox worship around. I wonder if they will let me acolyte for them? I'm quite giddy.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2017 22:06
|
|
|
The Phlegmatist posted:the pope might, also holy scripture might, and one of the apostles might I approve the quoting of scripture for the purpose of rebuking bad choices. System Metternich posted:Don't forget that Bannon openly stated that he admired Satan for his power and actively tries to bring down the Pope. Both in politics and in spirituality, Steve Bannon has publicly aligned himself with losers, but even now he has time to change his heart and ask for mercy from the ones he has hurt with his Satan-following ways. On St. Paul's suggestion, I include him in my prayers. Yesterday was also the 14th of Nisan from the Hebrew Calendar, the day my Jehovah's Witnesses neighbors memorialize the death of Jesus and practice their Eucharist tradition. Most of my life I've learned from trinitarians or nonbelievers who don't make much distinction, so it's the first time I'm really encountering nontrinitarian Christians. Seeing the divide encourages me to better know our common scriptures and practice neighborly love, but it also makes me sad.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2017 23:41
|
|
|
HEY GAIL posted:the only people who romanticize the poor never were See: William S Burroughs, who lived like an outcast while continuously getting an allowance from his wealthy family.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2017 03:28
|
|
|
CountFosco posted:See: William S Burroughs, who lived like an outcast while continuously getting an allowance from his wealthy family.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2017 03:36
|
|
|
pidan posted:I appreciate the appeal to my natural fear of Protestantism, but the people who were not working throughout history were people who had other people working for them. Slaveholders, feudal lords, heirs and people living off rent. Even the Benedictines have ora et labora, not just ora.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2017 03:38
|
|
|
remember when everyone thought automation would eliminate work. that when the necessary parts of life became a product of machination people would be able to pursue self fulfillment as the main point of life. now we have machines putting people out of work because capitalism ruins everything good the greeks had it right; leisure is the ideal, and work is a terrible thing that came about because man sucks
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2017 03:47
|
|
|
Senju Kannon posted:remember when everyone thought automation would eliminate work. that when the necessary parts of life became a product of machination people would be able to pursue self fulfillment as the main point of life. now we have machines putting people out of work because capitalism ruins everything good i'm not sure how greek that last part is
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2017 03:52
|
|
|
hey i was a classics major for a year eight years ago i think i would know (pretty sure it's a creation myth in hesiods theogeny)
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2017 04:15
|
|
|
Senju Kannon posted:hey i was a classics major for a year eight years ago i think i would know (pretty sure it's a creation myth in hesiods theogeny) i am being very literal in my uncertainty i would love to know more
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2017 04:18
|
|
|
Work can be an emotional and spiritual good for people, but it should not be a physical necessity. Very few people are happy being idle, but there's no compelling social reason to force more work on people than is necessary for a functioning society.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2017 04:37
|
|
|
something about the golden age of humanity and how the gods walked among men and bread grew on trees and you didn't have to farm, followed by the silver age which i THINK was the age of heroes like theseus? then the bronze age of men which i don't remember if that was the age with greeks as we know them or not. something about the degeneration of humanity from its peak to today, but i do remember that a major component of that myth is that in the past people were able to live in leisure and that the athenian ideal was to have as much leisure time as possible because it allowed people higher functions like philosophy
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2017 04:39
|
|
|
Bel_Canto posted:Work can be an emotional and spiritual good for people, but it should not be a physical necessity. Very few people are happy being idle, but there's no compelling social reason to force more work on people than is necessary for a functioning society. we should note that idleness and not working aren't identical; a college student focusing on their studies but doesn't have a job isn't idle, they just aren't "working" in a way that capitalism deems valuable. a housewife or househusband don't "work" but they aren't idle, either. what we define as "work" vs "idleness" has more to do with capitalist alienation of the pursuit of self fulfillment from the ability to create profit
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2017 04:41
|
|
|
Tuxedo Catfish posted:i am being very literal in my uncertainty yes it's in the theogony. work was considered something that nobody wanted to do, because it took time away from being able to make yourself a better person and from cultivating higher goods like friendship or the love of beauty. this stays with us today in that our notion of "liberal education" is "education for people who will have leisure." you read important books and talk about ideas to prepare you for a life where you'll have the leisure to do those things, as opposed to people who need to work as much as possible and don't have the energy for leisure. that's the basic summation of the greek view of work
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2017 04:41
|
|
|
is that a function of man loving up or the gods being assholes though that's the part i'm curious about, whether the greeks would see mankind's fate as our just deserts or not
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2017 04:47
|
|
|
Tuxedo Catfish posted:is that a function of man loving up or the gods being assholes though Bit of both, really. It was retaliation for Prometheus' second swindle. First was the theft of fire, the second pertained to the division of sacrifice. Prometheus rigged it so that humans get the meet, the gods get the fat, the bones, and all the other nasty bits. Zeus was forced to accept the outcome, but decided to punish mankind with a nasty new addition - woman. See, before that time, there were only men, and new ones just sprouted out of the ground naturally from time to time. That wouldn't be the case anymore, now sexual reproduction became a thing, and this meant work, because - Hesiod explicitly spells this out - women were greedy and could never have enough, making it so that men had to work all the time to keep them even marginally happy. (There's a ton of anxiety about women throughout Hesiod.) The odd thing is that humans happened to be the indirect beneficiary of a squabble between Prometheus and Zeus, and had to pay for it. Really, in most of the classical myths, Prometheus is a dick. He's going to fight the power, no matter who happens to hold it or what they're doing with it, and he doesn't give a drat about silly things like collateral damage. Aeschylus nicely summed this up in the title of one of his lost plays, "Prometheus the Arsonist."
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2017 04:57
|
|
|
All that stuff is part of Greek mythology, yes, but there's no real set chronology to it: the only definite link is that according to Hesiod's Works and Days, Zeus did send Pandora in retaliation for the trick of the first sacrifice. The explicit narrative of the decline of man, the so-called "myth of ages," is in a different part of the poem. And the word πυροφόρος in the title of Aeschylus's play just means "fire-bringer." Greeks certainly didn't seem to envision Prometheus as some kind of pathological rebel: they frequently praised him as a friend to humanity.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2017 15:14
|
|
|
I was sticking to the version in the Theogony though. To be sure the versions don't line up exactly, but I was following the indication given by the little diatribe about the relation of women to work. And as for Aeschylyus was thinking of Prometheus Pyrkaeus - the satyr play - not the tragic Prometheus Pyrophoros. Not that we know much about it, but at least in terms of what I've read it was probably a slapstick buffoon Prometheus, who ruins everything by bringing fire.
Numerical Anxiety fucked around with this message at 19:51 on Apr 13, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2017 19:48
|
|
|
Hey Christianity thread, I'm still alive and breathing! Praise the lord Who got to be the one to decide what texts/books were or were not worthy to be included in THE Bible? I presume a lot of thought went into it. I saw some discussion a few pages back about the king Jame's version and whatnot which got me thinking. Was it a council of scholars or just some random king? Like... who wrote the Bible?
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2017 20:08
|
|
|
I think most people had decided on a canon by the 5th century. Christianity in the early centuries was a bit all over the place with no real central authority, it gradually unified (Rome helped) and people started talking about what bits of the various bits of pre-existing literature they wanted to promote for all Christians. The Bible was compiled, its source texts were written.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2017 20:31
|
|
|
I LIKE COOKIE posted:Like... who wrote the Bible? I certainly hope you're not expecting a simple answer. The oldest texts in the Old Testament are roughly a thousand years older than the newest ones, then there was a gap of about 450 years and then "they" started writing the New Testament. Of course, none of the authors probably thought they would be writing the Bible. The books of the Bible include history, prophecies, poetry, letters and wisdom literature (like, sayings and ancient philosophy before it was called that) and the cast of authors varies from literal kings to lowly fishermen. Each of them probably had different motivations for writing their stuff. Some were writing down ancient tales that had been retold for ages but not written down, some were writing as historians (the concept of recording history wasn't necessarily the same as it is for us), some just wanted to praise the Lord or wanted to write a great love song or lament the unfairness of life, some were writing down their divine revelations and so on. That's not exactly what you asked but I felt it should be mentioned. Now, the Bible is not exactly the same across different Christian denominations either, but enough so that I'm not going to go there since I don't really know about that. The common belief is that God has guided the people who composed the Bible so that it fulfills it's purpose. Depending on who you ask, this guidance might have been literal dictation of "these books are the only important ones" or like "it seems I can use that collection of books they're compiling there" or anything in between. And sure enough, there are some Christians who treat the Bible like muslims treat the Quran and those who don't think there's anything divine in there. As for how and by whom the Bible was compiled, or canonized, I'll just link this since it's complicated: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Development_of_the_Christian_biblical_canon
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2017 20:35
|
|
|
Knowing about the compilation process I always kind of look at the bible as a reading list.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2017 20:39
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I think most people had decided on a canon by the 5th century. Christianity in the early centuries was a bit all over the place with no real central authority, it gradually unified (Rome helped) and people started talking about what bits of the various bits of pre-existing literature they wanted to promote for all Christians. The Bible was compiled, its source texts were written. A bit earlier than that, practically if not officially - by the end of the second, early third century, Origen evidences what is more or less the canon as we know it. His version had a few question marks, mostly pertaining to books that were later designated Deuterocanonical. There was some question, particularly in the Syrian churches, about whether Revelation was going to be included and whether it was licit to use the Diatesseron, but amongst the Proto-orthodox communities, the development seems to have been fairly organic.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2017 20:40
|
|
|
I LIKE COOKIE posted:Hey Christianity thread, I'm still alive and breathing! Praise the lord Most of the thought - up until the Reformation, boo, hiss, etc  - was "do churches use this? do bishops quote from this?", and then a council was called to formally combine everybody's lists, more or less. So some early lists contain books that Catholics would consider "apocryphal" (not inspired texts); some contain "deuterocanonical" books ("second canon" - the books that Protestants don't accept); and some lists leave out books that Catholics, the Eastern Orthodox, and mainline Protestants consider "canonical"; that's why a council was needed to have the last word. ("Why does there have to be a last word? What's wrong with people disagreeing?" If the Bible is the word of God, and ignorance of it is ignorance of Christ, then knowing what counts and what doesn't really does matter - if for nothing else than for deciding what can and can't be proclaimed during communal worship!)There's some evidence to suggest that this happened at least once prior to Christ; the book of Genesis certainly seems like it's a compilation of multiple texts, even though some people believe God dictated it directly to Moses. (Some believe it was not just directly revealed, not even just revealed word by word, but revealed letter by letter.) In those cases it would be largely the same process - what texts are people already considering inspired, and are there texts that everyone is using? - except with scribes literally combining them into one scroll, instead of a collection of scrolls/codices/books. As far as King James (the sixth) and his Authorized Version goes, he didn't specify which books to include or exclude; what he wanted was a consistent English translation for the Anglican church to use. (An English translation was also being prepared in France by Catholics, and there were inconsistent earlier translations already available; having one that wasn't Catholic and was authoritative when other translations disagreed was important.) If I recall correctly, the earliest Authorized Versions did include the Deuterocanonical books, which most Protestants today don't accept as inspired.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2017 21:10
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Knowing about the compilation process I always kind of look at the bible as a reading list. Canon does mean a list of books. I LIKE COOKIE posted:Hey Christianity thread, I'm still alive and breathing! Praise the lord Amen and pax vobiscum, brother Jacob. As a list of books, each book of the Bible has its traditionally held author. For example, the Jewish tradition says a prophet named Moses wrote the Books of Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus and Numbers; Christian tradition is that Paul wrote the letters that we call Romans, Galatians, Timothy, and more; the four Gospels were written by authors named Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. If you get into a scholar-ish study of the authorship, you'll find that there's much speculation and debate about the historically authentic authorship of every book of the Bible. Historicity is controversial. But if you are reading the Bible or just considering it, St. Paul said this about Scripture: The Second Letter from Paul to Timothy, Chapter 3, The Message Translation posted:Anyone who wants to live all out for Christ is in for a lot of trouble; there’s no getting around it. Unscrupulous con men will continue to exploit the faith. They’re as deceived as the people they lead astray. As long as they are out there, things can only get worse. Pray on that term, God-breathed, translated literally from its original Greek, theopneustos. Now when Paul supposedly wrote that, not every book of the New Testament had been written, and the compiling had not been done, and then it would still take two thousand years before Pastor Eugene Peterson would translate it into contemporary English, but the standard to look for in the Bible or in anything that is read or heard is this, "Was that the breath of God?" Holy Spirit, answer us, please and thank you!
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2017 22:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 17:00 |
|
|
Caufman I hope that translation has an imprimatur 
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2017 22:58
|
|
