The Nightstar Zoo

Nightstar IRC Network - irc.nightstar.net
It is currently Thu Nov 23, 2017 12:28 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 66 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Aug 08, 2003 5:07 pm 
Anh Minh wrote:
OT: what does the bible have against apothecaries?


Perhaps; The magic men of the church don't want competition in the healing game?


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Aug 08, 2003 5:41 pm 
What healing?


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Aug 08, 2003 6:01 pm 
Oh, I'm sorry. Raising the dead doesn't qualify as healing or magic. Please forgive my error.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Aug 08, 2003 6:04 pm 
As far as I know, they never did that. Sorry.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Aug 08, 2003 6:12 pm 
... sometimes some people make my head hurt. Right in the back, where I had that thing removed twice, and there's a big scar where no hair grows...

...General, are you saying that to your knowledge that in the Bible people never went around healing the sick or raising the dead? Just want to make sure before I get in too deep...

As far as apothecaries and subjects along the lines of sorcery/witchcraft/magic... I think the thoughts behind it are such activities usually have associations with supernatural beings that do not appear to be in association with God. This runs in conflict with the "No other gods before me" commandment, as well as some other instructions against soothsayers and mediums and the such, though on some level I know not if that is based on the translation, and it really doesn't answer too much.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Aug 08, 2003 6:17 pm 
I'm just saying that I've never seen any evidence that any clergy ever did those things, nor that it would be in their interest to do so. The only exception that I know of is faith healers, but they're not mainstream.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Aug 08, 2003 6:23 pm 
I agree, Christian Science can hardly be called mainstream...


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Aug 08, 2003 7:58 pm 
Offline
Knight of Daisies, Tulip Slayer
User avatar

Joined: Sat May 11, 2002 5:39 pm
Posts: 316
kreely wrote:
Actually, the original translation was "Thou shalt not suffer an apothecary to live."

Witch didn't enter the picture til King James went nuts.


Here's a breakdown - I've talked with some Orthodox Jew customers of mine (I have several) and gotten some confirmation. In general, it would be roughly "You won't let a poisoner live with you." or perhaps "One with a negative knowledge of herbs."

Hebrew is not an easy language. I have to depend on my customers from Israel to give me any real translations - and early Hebrew was terrible. They didn't have punctuation or case sensitivity, and minor variations could completely change the meaning of a word.

http://www.templeofbast.com/WitchToLive.html

Note that a 'witch' or 'sorcerer' wasn't exactly unknown to the Old Testament people, nor was it considered 'evil'. King Solomon used his knowledge of 'magic' to command demons, so that they would not cause harm. Many of the other OT people could be considered 'witches' or 'magicians' as well. (Moses. Think about it. Maybe god gave him the power, but he commanded the elements, and they obeyed. Alchemy!)

On the 'k' in magic.

Magic
Magicked
Magicking
Magician.

In the English language, ending a word in a 'c' gives a hard 'k' sound. However, adding a vowel to the c generally softens it to an 'sh' sound. (There are exceptions, generally being 'starting the word with a c' and a 'double c' - as in 'accord' and 'candle'. )

Thus 'magic' would be a hard c, whereas if they spelled it 'magiced', it would be 'magi-sed' rather than 'magic-ed'.

The use of the k in the single word is ego, and nothing more.

_________________
----------------------------------------------------------
I'll get a life when it is proven and substantiated to be better than what I am currently experiencing.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Aug 08, 2003 8:01 pm 
The General wrote:
I'm just saying that I've never seen any evidence that any clergy ever did those things, nor that it would be in their interest to do so. The only exception that I know of is faith healers, but they're not mainstream.

Don't know about the clergy per se, but IIRC, the grace of God was supposed to be involved in kings healing people by touch.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Aug 08, 2003 8:05 pm 
Offline
Knight of Daisies, Tulip Slayer
User avatar

Joined: Sat May 11, 2002 5:39 pm
Posts: 316
The General wrote:
As far as I know, they never did that. Sorry.


To point out Mark 7:31-37, where Jesus Christ healed a deaf mute, and Mark 8:22-26, where he healed a blind man.

Then there is the healing of a leper, found in Mark 1:40, Matt 8:1, and Luke 5:12.

Healing of a lame man - Matt 9:1, Mark 2:1, and Luke 5:18

Should I continue with the list of things that you say they never did? :)

BW

_________________
----------------------------------------------------------
I'll get a life when it is proven and substantiated to be better than what I am currently experiencing.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Aug 08, 2003 8:16 pm 
Bookworm wrote:
The General wrote:
As far as I know, they never did that. Sorry.

To point out Mark 7:31-37, where Jesus Christ healed a deaf mute, and Mark 8:22-26, where he healed a blind man.
Then there is the healing of a leper, found in Mark 1:40, Matt 8:1, and Luke 5:12.
Healing of a lame man - Matt 9:1, Mark 2:1, and Luke 5:18
Should I continue with the list of things that you say they never did? :)
BW


But were any of them churchmen or other clergy members? That was my point.

And Jesus wasn't Christian, so he doesn't count anyway. Sorry.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Aug 08, 2003 8:31 pm 
One example should be satisfactory...

There came also a multitude out of the cities round about unto Jerusalem, bringing sick folks, and them which were vexed with unclean spirits: and they were healed every one. - Acts 5:16


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Aug 08, 2003 8:39 pm 
Offline
Knight of Daisies, Tulip Slayer
User avatar

Joined: Sat May 11, 2002 5:39 pm
Posts: 316
The General wrote:

But were any of them churchmen or other clergy members? That was my point.

And Jesus wasn't Christian, so he doesn't count anyway. Sorry.


Ouch. In essence, he is considered the 'original' christian. That is why he is known as The Christ. By denying his membership in what became known as Christianity as well as Judaeism, you basically then deny anything that came later. He was attempting to reform Judaeism rather than create a new religion, correct - however, it's results that matter.

BW

_________________
----------------------------------------------------------
I'll get a life when it is proven and substantiated to be better than what I am currently experiencing.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Aug 08, 2003 8:42 pm 
No, what I'm denying is that modern Christianity is in any notable way based on the beliefs of Jesus Christ, which to a large degree it's not.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Aug 08, 2003 8:43 pm 
The General wrote:
No, what I'm denying is that modern Christianity is in any notable way based on the beliefs of Jesus Christ, which to a large degree it's not.


Tell us, then, to your knowledge what modern Christianity says, and what the beliefs of Christ were, and the differences within them.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Aug 08, 2003 8:45 pm 
Barnabas Truman wrote:
gwalla wrote:
The part that gets my goat is when Wiccans gripe that the "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" thing was put in there to oppress Wiccans. I want to shake them and shout "Wicca didn't even eist when that was written! AAAAARGH!"


If my sources are accurate, that bit was put in by King James's translators at his request, and the intention was that it would be used to oppress witches. However, back then, "witch" did not mean "practitioner of the religion known as Wicca;" instead, "witch" meant "harmless old lady that we want to oppress for some reason, and we need an excuse"... need I mention that another thing that bugs me about many Wiccans is their insistence that they be called "witches," and their attitude that any insulting portrayal of witches in the media is clearly a deliberate personal attack towards them?


A very good essay on the subject.

Quote:
gwalla wrote:
I think Odinism is currently the big thing among Scandinavian "black metal" bands. Worshipping Satan is just so passé.


I am none too fond of black metal bands or white supremacist groups to begin with, and any black metal band or white supremacist group that claims to have the Norse gods on their side has truly earned my everlasting hatred. In all my studies of Norse mythology, I've never seen anything that even remotely justifies either black metal or white supremacy. Bastards. :mad:


I think it's basically because they were already rejecting Christianity, and just added a bit of nationalism to the mix.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Aug 08, 2003 9:09 pm 
Offline
Knight of Daisies, Tulip Slayer
User avatar

Joined: Sat May 11, 2002 5:39 pm
Posts: 316
gwalla wrote:

I think it's basically because they were already rejecting Christianity, and just added a bit of nationalism to the mix.


How Norse Mythology could be considered 'nationalism' I'm not sure - That's because it's been used in the Germanic countries in general, not just the extremely northern Europe.

Oh well, everyone's entitled to their personal delusions. Some even talk to them.

BW

_________________
----------------------------------------------------------
I'll get a life when it is proven and substantiated to be better than what I am currently experiencing.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Aug 09, 2003 12:01 am 
Yeah, the only reason it's called "Norse" mythology is because that was the last place to be converted out of it, and hence also the source for most of our knowledge of it.


-=-Barnabas


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Aug 16, 2003 9:55 pm 
Offline
Reptile House Exhibit
Reptile House Exhibit
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 23, 2003 10:08 am
Posts: 305
Location: The Great Northern Deciduous Forests
I've desperately wanted to crush this thread for a while, but never got around to it. So here it is.


Let's not mention anything about the ties between the homosexual community and the pedophilic one, shall we?

Pot, kettle.

How about an on-topic quote from the Bible? Matthew 7:4 (NIV)

"How can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when all the time there is a plank in your own eye?"

I'd also like to point out that the 'gay community' has done very little to benefit society. It's at heart a self-serving organisation, and that only. Compare that to the Roman Catholic Church, that, for all its sins and shortcomings, has done an enormous amount of good work, and still does, for that matter.

Henk G.

_________________
Why are canines called canines when feline canines are bigger than canine canines?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Aug 16, 2003 10:25 pm 
Quote:
I'd also like to point out that the 'gay community' has done very little to benefit society. It's at heart a self-serving organisation, and that only.

You might also argue that the black people who followed Martin Luther King junior were selfish. And come to think of it, so were the American colonists who fought against the British monarchy in 1776.
Is fighting for your rights selfish? One might argue that it is. But I still think one should do it.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Aug 16, 2003 10:34 pm 
htg wrote:
Let's not mention anything about the ties between the homosexual community and the pedophilic one, shall we?


What ties? I've seen no evidence whatsoever that there are (proportionately) more homosexual pedophiles than heterosexual pedophiles. You might as well "not mention anything" about the ties between the heterosexual community and the pedophilic one.

htg wrote:
I'd also like to point out that the 'gay community' has done very little to benefit society. It's at heart a self-serving organisation, and that only. Compare that to the Roman Catholic Church, that, for all its sins and shortcomings, has done an enormous amount of good work, and still does, for that matter.


And I'd like to point out that the Roman Catholic Church is at heart a self-serving organization, and has done much to harm society. Need I mention the Crusades, the Inquisition, the Witch-Hunts, the feeding of pagans to the lions, the grinding-to-a-halt of scientific advancement all over Europe? The "gay community" hasn't done anything nearly as terrible as that (yeah, yeah, go ahead and blame AIDS on them if you wanna, but I won't be taking you seriously if you do). Furthermore, their efforts to be accepted themselves has also given a great boost to the many other minorities crying out for tolerance, and that's worth a good deal of respect in my book.


-=-Barnabas


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Aug 16, 2003 11:48 pm 
htg wrote:
I'd also like to point out that the 'gay community' has done very little to benefit society. It's at heart a self-serving organisation, and that only. Compare that to the Roman Catholic Church, that, for all its sins and shortcomings, has done an enormous amount of good work, and still does, for that matter.

Henk G.


Brother Barnabas said most of what I was thinking... so, just a question.
Got an example?


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Aug 17, 2003 12:23 am 
Ditto. I'd like to chip in, but he said everything I was going to. Bastard. ;)


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Aug 17, 2003 9:32 am 
Offline
Reptile House Exhibit
Reptile House Exhibit
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 23, 2003 10:08 am
Posts: 305
Location: The Great Northern Deciduous Forests
Barnabas Truman wrote:
What ties? I've seen no evidence whatsoever that there are (proportionately) more homosexual pedophiles than heterosexual pedophiles. You might as well "not mention anything" about the ties between the heterosexual community and the pedophilic one.

There's several organisations around calling for the legalisation of all sexual behaviour (including pedophilia) and as the first step to achieving that, they're helping out homosexual community. Good enough link?

Barnabas Truman wrote:
And I'd like to point out that the Roman Catholic Church is at heart a self-serving organization, and has done much to harm society. Need I mention the Crusades, the Inquisition, the Witch-Hunts, the feeding of pagans to the lions, the grinding-to-a-halt of scientific advancement all over Europe? The "gay community" hasn't done anything nearly as terrible as that (yeah, yeah, go ahead and blame AIDS on them if you wanna, but I won't be taking you seriously if you do). Furthermore, their efforts to be accepted themselves has also given a great boost to the many other minorities crying out for tolerance, and that's worth a good deal of respect in my book.


-=-Barnabas

Congratulations. You have successfully completed your indoctrination.

Honestly, put some thought into it yourself. Try to see through that garbage you've been taught. I can't be bothered to wade through all that stuff and reply point-by-point.

As for the minority rights...

It's wonderful that we have very little racism anymore, but currently it's the minority anti-racism groups that are perpetuating racism themselves (both by them and against them).

It's wonderful that native american societies were so close to nature. Nevermind their problems with starvation, high infant mortality, etc.

Don't get me started.

Henk G.

_________________
Why are canines called canines when feline canines are bigger than canine canines?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Aug 17, 2003 10:47 am 
htg wrote:
Barnabas Truman wrote:
What ties? I've seen no evidence whatsoever that there are (proportionately) more homosexual pedophiles than heterosexual pedophiles. You might as well "not mention anything" about the ties between the heterosexual community and the pedophilic one.

There's several organisations around calling for the legalisation of all sexual behaviour (including pedophilia) and as the first step to achieving that, they're helping out homosexual community. Good enough link?


PETA considers themselves environmentalists, but most environmentalists hate them. If the gays don't support them, the link you mentioned is purely sustained on the part of the organisations and not a part of the gay community. It's a very vague connection.

Quote:
Congratulations. You have successfully completed your indoctrination.
Honestly, put some thought into it yourself. Try to see through that garbage you've been taught. I can't be bothered to wade through all that stuff and reply point-by-point.
As for the minority rights...
It's wonderful that we have very little racism anymore, but currently it's the minority anti-racism groups that are perpetuating racism themselves (both by them and against them).
It's wonderful that native american societies were so close to nature. Nevermind their problems with starvation, high infant mortality, etc.
Don't get me started.
Henk G.

Jesus Christ, it's not like they're asking for a return to the old days, they just want frigging equality. You're dodging the point anyway, which is shortcomings of the church and has nothing to do with racism or the inefficiencies of certain ancient native lifestyles.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Aug 17, 2003 1:57 pm 
htg wrote:
Honestly, put some thought into it yourself. Try to see through that garbage you've been taught. I can't be bothered to wade through all that stuff and reply point-by-point.

This wins you no points in a debate, which is done by point-by-point arguments and concessions. This looks to me as if you're conceding that there is no rebuttal. If you're going to make such harsh and wide-ranging claims as "That garbage you've been taught" you're going to have to back it up with a shred of evidence.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Aug 17, 2003 2:26 pm 
htg wrote:
There's several organisations around calling for the legalisation of all sexual behaviour (including pedophilia) and as the first step to achieving that, they're helping out homosexual community. Good enough link?


Not unless you give me some citations. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Besides, I'm sure I could find plenty of purely heterosexual organizations calling for acceptance of bizarre sexual behaviors as well. Try clicking on some of Dr. Jekyll's old links, for example. But be sure you have some hydrochloric acid on hand, so you can use it to clean out your eye sockets afterwards...

htg wrote:
Congratulations. You have successfully completed your indoctrination.


I don't need any brainwashing to know that the Roman Catholic Church has done some pretty horrible things in history. Are you trying to say that they didn't? True, they've done some beneficial things as well, but to paraphrase Commander Norrington, a few good deeds are not enough to redeem a church of a lifetime of wickedness.

htg wrote:
Honestly, put some thought into it yourself. Try to see through that garbage you've been taught.


I've put quite a lot of thought into it myself, actually, and I've found that I wasn't taught very much garbage at all in this subject, as my high school history teacher was extremely good at his job.

htg wrote:
I can't be bothered to wade through all that stuff and reply point-by-point.


That's what debates are all about. If you'll excuse my vulgarity: put up or shut up.

htg wrote:
It's wonderful that we have very little racism anymore,


Very little racism anymore? Where'd you get that idea?

htg wrote:
but currently it's the minority anti-racism groups that are perpetuating racism themselves (both by them and against them).


A bit, yes, but that certainly doesn't mean that all "majority" groups aren't still committing the same old racism they've been perpetuating for hundreds of years.

htg wrote:
It's wonderful that native american societies were so close to nature.


Bullshit. Ever been to Chaco Canyon in New Mexico? Used to be a forest. Then a (relatively) high-tech Anasazi city rose up in the area, and started harvesting the lumber. Now the whole place is a barren desert. In general, low-tech societies are "close to nature," while sufficiently high-tech societies tend use up resources at a faster rate than they can replenish. It had very little to do with their culture.

htg wrote:
Nevermind their problems with starvation, high infant mortality, etc.


Again, that's true of any low-tech society, including, say, Europe until a few hundred years ago.

What does all this have to do with the topic anyway?

htg wrote:
Don't get me started.


Too late, you already have.


-=-Barnabas


Top
  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 19, 2003 2:49 pm 
Offline
Reptile House Exhibit
Reptile House Exhibit
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 23, 2003 10:08 am
Posts: 305
Location: The Great Northern Deciduous Forests
We'll start here and jump around as I feel like it.
Barnabas Truman wrote:
htg wrote:
It's wonderful that native american societies were so close to nature.

Bullshit.

I actually agree. My remark was intended to be somewhat sarcastic (not against you.)
Barnabas Truman wrote:
Ever been to Chaco Canyon in New Mexico? Used to be a forest. Then a (relatively) high-tech Anasazi city rose up in the area, and started harvesting the lumber. Now the whole place is a barren desert. In general, low-tech societies are "close to nature," while sufficiently high-tech societies tend use up resources at a faster rate than they can replenish. It had very little to do with their culture.

And thank you for providing an example I was unaware of.
Barnabas Truman wrote:
htg wrote:
Congratulations. You have successfully completed your indoctrination.

I don't need any brainwashing to know that the Roman Catholic Church has done some pretty horrible things in history. Are you trying to say that they didn't? True, they've done some beneficial things as well, but to paraphrase Commander Norrington, a few good deeds are not enough to redeem a church of a lifetime of wickedness.

I think I phrased that a little too harshly. My apologies.

I do not deny that the RCC is a self-perpetuating organisation, nor that it has done a lot of horrible things. (Also, I am not a member of the RCC, and I disagree with a lot of what they say/do.) But the current stereotype of the church being the bane of peaceful society, of repressing science and whatnot (which you seem to buy into), I do disagree with.

During the medieval era, the church was one of the few things keeping a semblance of unity in politically fragmented Europe.

A vast amount of documents from the Roman and Greek eras were studied and preserved in the monastaries. Without these, the era of the Rennaissance would have lost a lot of what provided its initial impetus.

Monastaries provided a safe stop-over for travelers. They were also the centres of healing, and a neutral safe-haven in the event of war.

The orders were one of the few places where the barriers of class were reduced. Even people from lowly backgrounds could rise pretty high.

The church sponsored a lot of scientific research. Galileo was partly supported by the church, and Copernicus was a church employee (a canon) for just about his entire life, receiving from it the money that allowed him to build his own observatory. Need I remind you that our current rather accurate calendar was actually introduced by the church?

It was through the actions of some very courageous RC missionaries that much of Europe became more or less civilised (eg Boniface in the Netherlands).

Still now RC related and/or funded charities do a lot of good work all around the globe (remember Mother Teresa?)

And that's a very non-exhaustive list.


Let's compare that to the good work of gay rights activists.

Getting rights for gays.

Getting more rights of gays.

Getting yet more rights for gays.

Oh, and helping a few other oppressed minority organisation too, while they were going that direction anyways.

Barnabas Truman wrote:
Very little racism anymore? Where'd you get that idea?

Maybe it's just the company I keep. But I've personally never really met racism. Oh, some black jokes, a few Paki jokes, but no delusions of racial superiority.

Blame AIDS on gays? No. They do, however, bear their portion of the blame for spreading it (along with everybody else who's sexually promiscuous.)

Anyway, my original point was that just because the Roman Catholic Bishops did not deal seriously enough with child abuse among a minority of priests, does not automatically give gay organisations moral superiority (though it certainly dents the moral authority of the Church). But if gays can dig through the back of other's closets, the same can be done to them. As well, despite lack of action, official church policy right up and back down the hierachy condemns child abuse, which cannot be said for all gay rights organisations.

Finally, the gays in that article missed the point. The RCC is not condemning homosexuality on its own authority (and yes, they would have a somewhat painful point in that case), but that of the Bible. And the Book is more than adequately clear in that regard. The RCC can't back down and remain a church.

Henk G.

*edit* clarified two things.

_________________
Why are canines called canines when feline canines are bigger than canine canines?


Last edited by htg on Tue Aug 19, 2003 6:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 19, 2003 3:30 pm 
htg wrote:
I do not deny that the RCC is a self-perpetuating organisation, nor that it has done a lot of horrible things. (Also, I am not a member of the RCC, and I disagree with a lot of what they say/do.) But the current stereotype of the church being the bane of peaceful society, of repressing science and whatnot (which you seem to buy into), I do disagree with.

During the medieval era, the church was one of the few things keeping a semblance of unity in politically fragmented Europe.

A vast amount of documents from the Roman and Greek eras were studied and preserved in the monastaries. Without these, the era of the Enlightenment would have lost a lot of what provided its initial impetus.

Monastaries provided a safe stop-over for travelers. They were also the centres of healing, and a neutral safe-haven in the event of war.

The orders were one of the few places where the barriers of class were reduced. Even people from lowly backgrounds could rise pretty high.

The church sponsored a lot of scientific research. Galileo was partly supported by the church, and Copernicus was a church employee (a canon) for just about his entire life, receiving from it the money that allowed him to build his own observatory. Need I remind you that our current rather accurate calendar was actually introduced by the church?

It was through the actions of some very courageous RC missionaries that much of Europe became more or less civilised (eg Boniface in the Netherlands).

Still now RC related and/or funded charities do a lot of good work all around the globe (remember Mother Teresa?)

And that's a very non-exhaustive list.


Let's compare that to the good work of gay rights activists.

Getting rights for gays.

Getting more rights of gays.

Getting yet more rights for gays.

Oh, and helping a few other oppressed minority organisation too, while they were going that direction anyways.


I do not believe this is a valid comparison.

Gay organisations were created for the purpose of defending gay rights. Other than that, most members have day jobs, hobbies, families... The Church asks a much greater commitment of its clergymen and women.

Also, no one ever paid taxes to gay organisations (unless you count state subsidies, which aren't much compared to what the Church used to receive in the middle ages) or looked at them as the place to keep civil records.


Top
  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 19, 2003 6:07 pm 
Offline
Reptile House Exhibit
Reptile House Exhibit
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 23, 2003 10:08 am
Posts: 305
Location: The Great Northern Deciduous Forests
Anh Minh wrote:
I do not believe this is a valid comparison.

You're right, it isn't. The biggest reason for posting that list was to respond to the statement that the RCC did very little good to make up for all the evil it did.

Maybe I shouldn't have tacked comparison on at the end there.

Henk G.

_________________
Why are canines called canines when feline canines are bigger than canine canines?


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 66 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group