Jesus Needs New PR

searching around on the internetz and i found this from a pastor reviewing Rob Bell's Velvet Elvis book:

Living the “Jesus life” is not the essence of Christianity and neither is obeying the commands of Jesus (as important as that is). The essence of Christianity centers upon the work of Christ on behalf of sinners (i.e. substitutionary atonement). This is the matter of first importance (1 Corinthians 15:3) that was the prioritized message of Jesus’ apostles (e.g. 1 Corinthians 2:2)

followed by other 'yeah-that's-right-you-tell'ems" such as:

I’ve read some of Crossan’s books and they are very, very troubling. They are attempting to turn Christianity into a crossless religion. The Cross brings offense and always will. I say “let them alone. They are the blind leading the blind.” 

oy! adventures in missing the point! i love how people put Paul over Jesus. Paul DOES NOT talk about Jesus. Paul is largely not concerned with talking about who Jesus is. Instead Paul is a church conflict manager, he is concerned with POWER and AUTHORITY in church and that is why he spends so much time putting himself on par with the other apostles and giving out unsolicited advice to church communities.

here are two thoughts for readers of this blog and Christians in general: If living the life of Jesus isn't the point, you're wrong. if the eschatology isn't a participatory one, you're wrong. no if's, and's, or but's about it.

I like Crossan and Borg and they don't lead people away from the cross, they help people understand what got Jesus there, namely HIS LIFE! When Jesus said TAKE UP YOUR CROSS AND FOLLOW ME, he's asking ppl to live a life like his that will ultimately lead to your death, literally or metaphorically (dying to yourself and such like). Christianity at its root (Jesus) is non-violent and anti-empire (due to the simple fact that all empires endorse violence). The early church was also non-violent and anti-empire...and that tradition has been carried on by some, though not all, Christians. while the cross does bring offense, Crossan doesn't do away with it, he does away of the literal resurrection: cross is still prominent.

I'm against people taking an anti-empire, anti-conventional wisdom and dumbing it down to "be a good citizen, believe what we teach you, and tithe." Doctrines and tradition are important, being a good citizen is responsible and a good fulfillment of the social contract, but don't think for a minute that these make one a Christian.

All this to say I'm sick of slash-and-burn Christianity, I'm sick of other Christians calling other Christians NOT Christian (unChristian yes, fair game, we can act unChristian many a times). I'm sick of anti-science, anti-intellectual, and anti-liberal/critical method Christianity. When i read crap like that, i feel as though i'm an outsider in my own faith; a thinker surrounded by over-emotional feelers.  i know i'm not alone and i'm on a mission to find such people that are dying to hear people like Borg, Crossan, and Bell, and give Jesus some new PR.

image found at SINFEST where the copyright is held: copyright 2008 by Tatsuya Ishida/Museworks used here for the intended purpose to get all you jerks to go to that site and check it out!

Intro Re-Write

I do not know what exactly I believe but I can say that it starts with and is inspired by the life of Jesus Christ. My personal theology, as all theologies, has been shaped by contexts, experiences, and relationships which make up my very identity. As these are all constantly in flux, so is my theology. It is not a static, fixed system but more contextual, adaptable, and fluid. It centers on loving God and my neighbor as myself.


My theology is shaped by my interests, interpretations, gifts and limitations. It is based on a particular style, much like a painting, which is my community, the United Church of Christ. I use my theology, like art, to convey meaning to others. There are many styles in which to paint in the Christian tradition and I am a mix of many. I was raised Catholic. I react against Fundamentalist theologies. I want to be a Liberal Christian as I came to be a Protestant and was trained in seminary in this tradition but find myself more and more thinking and speaking in Neo-Orthodox terms. It has elements of all these streams put together in a new way. My theological style is more interested in imagination, beauty, and mystery; focusing more on questions than answers.

In this paper I hope to explain the areas of my theology. I will start by describing my understanding of the historical Christian Church. I will then describe my view of my denomination and how I intersect with it. I will then describe my faith journey and sense of call. It won’t be in a linear fashion but more integrated as each plays into the other. I will try to separate them as best I am able. I will first speak of my interpretation of the Historical Christian Church.

Linear Dog Meets a Fundie-Bot

This one goes out to my pal Steve! Look at it this way dude, at least someone got something out of your experience! I got inspiration and you got this comic strip! yay!

Unidactyl Creates the Marshmallow

I really despise magical thinking. I'm all into MYSTICAL thinking, but not magical. What is the difference?

I have no idea how the marshmallow was created. Not one idea. So when we, as humans, come to something where we don't know how it was created, what do we do? we make up a story about it! Just like the creation story in Genesis or the creation myths in every culture on this planet. We are a story-telling species that are unique to this planet and perhaps the universe as no other animal tells stories.

So I looked it up on Wiki how Marshmallows are created, and now I know that this story is not the literal truth. I have the facts... so what does this mean for those who have to have a literal bible?

In short, their wrong... As James McGrath put it in this post

In short, they deny that the Bible is what it is. To claim that the Bible is simple when it is complex, to claim that it is clear when it is not, to claim that it is uniform when it is diverse, to claim that it is monolithic when it is pluriform, to claim that it is flawless when it is characterized throughout by the limitations and failings of its human authors - what could possibly be more unbiblical than this?

Now if i persist in my claims that the Unidactyl ACTUALLY created marshmallows despite all the evidence to the contary, this is magical thinking. If i instead say, this is NOT the literal, factual truth, but an excellent symbol that still holds truth to how marshmallows are created (which is still a stretch), then that is mystical thinking. Now comes the most important question, and one i ask as often as possible, does this make any sense?

The New Testament Class

Dudes.. seriously.. you gotta get a book called The New Testament; A Historical Introduction to Early Christianity by Bart D. Ehrman. Bart also wrote "Misquoting Jesus" which i also highly recommend. why do i loooove this book/class so much? well it really helps bring into focus the historical world of Jesus. Here are some thoughts from the book:

Many christians today think that there was once ONE christianity in the first century and that the splits (i.e. the many denominations) of christianity are a modern invention. NOT so. There were at least 4 types, if not more. we had the Jewish-Christian Adoptionist that thought Jesus was not himself divine but his message was. Calling Jesus God was a blasphemous lie. They liked the gospel of Matthew and thought Paul was a heretic.

The Marcionite Christians on the other hand LOVED Paul and thought that Jesus was Divine and NOT human. Marcionites believed that the Jewish god was evil and Jesus came to save us from this god. Marcion (the leader) actually went further and put together a "canon" or standard books. Their bible was a shortened version of Luke and ten truncated letters of Paul with NO Hebrew Scriptures.

There were the Gnostics who believed that there was a special knowledge that is necessary for salvation. Salvation meant escaping from this material world. Jesus was fully human but yet was entered into by another entity known as the CHRIST at his baptism. therefore jesus was two beings. Gnostics were also polytheists believing that there were at least 32 different gods and some even believed there were 365 gods and each one controlled one day. They had their own writings, namely the Gospel of Thomas, Gospel of Mary, Gospel of Truth, and the GOSPEL OF JOHN. Yes, that's right, John is a Gnostic gospel.

Proto-Orthodox christians claimed that it's views had always been the majority position and that it's rivials (meaning all you've just read about) were heretics. They later became the dominant form. They accomplished this by taking everyone else's major gospels, namely matthew, mark, luke and john and claiming that these held the real authority. these christians argued that jesus was both divine and human and was one being instead of two. by accepting all scriptures as authorities they were able to claim that both perspectives were right and showed their emphasis was correct and that argue'n that Jesus was ONLY human or ONLY divine was a perversion of the truth.

so that's how the New Testament emerged, namely out of conflicts from these groups. and we've been debate'n the acceptance of what books should be in the bible ever since. there were some popular ones like the shepherd of hermas that didn't make it. Revelation was the MOST disputed book, but somehow made it in. It was not until the year 367 C.E. (almost two and a half centuries after the last n.t. book was written) that the 27 book N.T. canon was accepted.

another thing to think about is the gap between writing. Mark was prolly the first Gospel written about Jesus... it was written 30 to 40 years after the death of Jesus. This would be like having the first written record of the Eisenhower presidencey appear today. There is also NO written reference to Jesus or his followers in pagan literature toay from the first century of the common era.

crazy facts for a crazy world. now we don't have to say "i wanna go back to that one time christianity" when we never had it. even the early church set up was split between 5 major ancient cities. gotta love history, it's so crazy interesting!

Not Playing God

from Dietrich Bonhoeffer Life Together:
"God did not make others as I would have made them. God did not give them to me so that i could dominate and control them, but so that i might find the creator by means of them... God does not want me to mold others into the image that seems good to me, that is, into my own image. Instead, in their freedom from me, God made other people in God's own image. I can never know in advance how God's image should appear in others and two others. That image always takes on a completely new and unique form."

Bonhoeffer points something out here vitally important to us, esp. to ministers. this is something i should have tattooed over my heart and on my forehead. others aren't a roadblock to God, they're the super highway. I've seen recently too many "christians" say things like "I just hope you find the true Christ." or "i hope you're striken to your knees and find christ as we've found him" or "there is only one way"...

how many people are on this planet? a few billion. good. each one is a different way to God. you can learn something different from each. take away the notion of "only those who actively come in the name are the only ones worth paying attention to" because that's just short-sighted. God isn't the most obvious, infact God is very subtle. there are better ways than a sunrise to let people know that you're there, but that's the method i see God reminds us everyday that God's there... discard notions of secular.. there's no such thing. God is everywhere. The trick is to be atuned to seeing God and finding God in unexpected places.

We do not have control of one another.. as a pastor i don't WANT control over others. i want to enter into dialog and see how that reflects back on us both... let's look at the strange feedback loop we've created.

Let's Not and Say We Did

From We Make the Road by Walking by Myles Horton and Paulo Freire page 29:

(A missonary came in)... who was telling how many souls he saved in africa and i was impressed with that. i thought that was great, saving souls, until he says the ones that i didn't save are going to hell. i said wait a minute. somethings wrong with this kind of thinking. he said if they're told about christ and don't accept him, then they go to hell but if they aren't told, they don't go to hell because they aren't responsible. so i did a little mental arithmetic, at which i was very poor but good enough for this purpose, and figured out how many people he was damning to hell.

The more i thought about that the more incensed i got at this whole procedure, damning these people to hell. The missionary had a discussion period and all these people were asking theological questions. So i asked him an arithmatic question. I asked, "How many people have you sent to hell? According to your analysis, for every person you've saved, you've sent hundreds to hell. Why, wouldn't it have been better if you'd stayed home, there'd be more people in heaven if you had stated home?"

Well, the people were furious.

+++++++++++++++

This book is the coolest! Go out and get it! Anyone who is a teacher, knows a teacher, or has ever been taught by a teacher! great read!

i was once like this missionary. from ages 12-16 i was very zealous and fundie in my doctrine. hard to believe now, but i believe this was out of my fear and ignorance of the world outside my catholic, smalltown context.

over the past few months i've been in a convo with a guy who still holds the fundie doctine. due to my christian leanings of "witnessing" and also thinking of my own faith journey, i thought that this dialogue would show ignorance and fear and maybe get this guy to convert, or at the very least, check out something outside of where he was looking.

the convo lasted until kate read it and found that this wasn't a dialogue at all but a pissing match. it was as if i was talking to a wall. him as well! i'm not blameless here either! it was an air of "screw the facts, my mind is made up!" on either side. i saw him as an ignorant fundie who just didn't know better and he saw me as a know-it-all agnostic who is trying to be a christian. well i'm a christian, i know that. as for a know-it-all, i hope i don't come across that way on here.. i'm just sharing cool stuff i've learned here. i'm still very much struggle'n and learning and always will be!

this convo proved fruitful however. i've learned a lot and here are some lessons i hope to share:

1. never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups reading books by authors designed to get stupid people to buy them and make a profit. Ann Coulter, James Dobson, and Richard Dawkins come to mind.

2. ignorant ppl will stay ignorant no matter how many book recommendations you make.

3. i'm a fundie as well... that's right, i've said it! i'm very much a fundamentalist.. with a twist on the word of course. i believe that you should love God, your neighbor and yourself, period. you fundamentally don't have to be christian to do this. if you are currently doing this in a non-christian capacity, you're covered.

How does this work biblically?
jesus said he was the way the way, the truth, and the life. can't get to the Father without him. if you're jewish and worshipping the Father, and jesus and the father are infact one and the same, you're covered.

if you're on the WAY of loving God, neighbor or self and think God is called Allah/Shiva/or even think God is within or in others, you're covered since THE WAY and jesus are one and the same.

if you're alive and jesus is THE LIFE then you're covered if you're following said love of God, neighbor, self.

when you boil my beliefs down, this is what it is. very simplistic, just like me ;-). my fundamental creed. the rest is just doctrine.

Can there be one way to God?

Sorry y'all.. you're getting two angry long posts right in a row. my last one was pretty firey and this one i fear is even worse. i never said that i would be happy ALL the time now did i? and seminary is hard and it makes my brain explode with ideas. i have trouble getting to sleep with all the thoughts my three brain cells are volley'n back and forth like some sad three way tennis match. but here it is in all it's glory! with lots of help in phrasing from a great book called The Phoenix Affirmations by Eric Elnes. it's a GREAT book and i've used most of what i remember about it here to help phrase the argument and terms...

I'm tired of being a "Christian But". Notice there is only one T in BUT. A "Christian But" is someone who says "I'm a Christian, BUT i belive homosexuals aren't evil, women are equal to men, i'm concerned with social justiceand global issues, (and the big one for me) i don't think that people who believe different from me are going to hell."

My idea is that there HAS to be more than one way to God. If God was so simple to have only one path to God, then this is a simple, black and white, and ultimately small god. This type of god is not one i'm willing to follow. To me, God is BIG! God made the earth and heavens and everything in it. God made every cell in my body as well as the stuff on Saturn or Pluto. God is universal. My belief in this is simple... it's commonly refered to as the MOUNTAIN VIEW of God. Here's the metaphor:

The major world religions are like hikers climbing up different sides of a mountain. Each tradition has discovered a unique route for reaching the top. In the case of Christianity and others, they have found a new route off of another established way up the mountain. Now while these hikers are climbing, they cannot necessarily see one another. individuals within the climbing parties may not even be aware that others are ascending the mountain. They think they alone are making the ascent. Yet when they reach the top, the climbers are surprised to find one another. Each party has reached the same goal by a different route. Here is where my deontology kicks in and says that all ethical routes reach the same moral end! the top of the mountain! all unethical routes cannot then reach the top (teleogy).

now people will try to accuse me of religious relativism. as stated in an article by a conservative columbus mega-church,
"Religious relativism is the belief that all religions are simply different perceptions of the same ultimate reality, or 'Many faiths are but different paths leading to one reality, God.' (DIFFERENT MOUNTAIN ROADS WHICH ALL LEAD TO SUMMIT)." this is found at www.xenos.org/teachings/topical/objections/oneway.htm

i really can't stand this. sure i have a bit of relativism in me... Einstein's theory of relativity generalises Galileo's principle of relativity — that all uniform motion was relative, and that there is no absolute and well-defined state of rest (no privileged reference frames) — from mechanics to all the laws of physics, including electrodynamics. To stress this point, Einstein not only widened the postulate of relativity, but added the second postulate that all observers will always measure the speed of light to be the same no matter what their state of uniform linear motion.

Okay.. even if you didn't get any of that, what it states is that where you are affects how you see things, HOWEVER, there is a truth or a constant by which to measure by. So i guess i could say that i'm a Religious Relativist through the school of Einstein. my constant then would be God.

the xenos website states: "The former (and biblical) definition of 'tolerance' made a distinction between people and their religious beliefs. It meant that people should have the legal freedom to practice the religion of their choice, and that you should personally respect and love them, even if you conclude that their beliefs are false. Today's 'tolerance' has removed the distinction between persons and their beliefs. It means that you must never call others' beliefs false or untrue, or you are an arrogant, intolerant bigot...No engineer says '8 + 32 = 40 or 8 + 32 = 53. Both answers are fine with me.' Would you want to trust a bridge this engineer built?"

I love this because it's a complete logical fallacy. they talk about what relativism is but then use strawmen and red herring tactics to defeat relativism without dealing directly, but that is another topic i could spend most of my life destroying. but let's keep to task here! A bigot, by its very definition, is a prejudiced person who is intolerant of opinions, lifestyles, or identities differing from his or her own. So yes, if you think someone else is untrue or wrong, then you are a bigot. Now you may see the double-speak here of "bigots are wrong because they call others wrong." Let me then add if one does not prove it logically invalid, then yes, a person is a bigot.

the website goes on to prove relativism is ignorant of logic by stating this funny math problem... i certainly would say that an answer is right and one is wrong due to the logic of mathematics.. now if we were talking about another situation, then i would have to look at the findings. what's the difference? well, in mathematics 1+1 is always 2. In other situations, say having a family, 1+1=3. or sometimes 1+1=2 or 3, and even 6! Depends on how many babies those two people produce, this is a question of genetics and fitness. and in Jesus' birth, these same people that shoot down relativism state that 0+1=2! seems like these people are selectively relative themselves.

now let's get on to the main bigoted statement against other faiths other than Christian from the website: "Therefore, the 'DIFFERENT MOUNTAIN ROADS WHICH ALL LEAD TO SUMMIT' analogy is simply untrue. The roads are on different mountains, they lead in fundamentally different directions and they end on completely different summits!"

last time i checked, Christianity was a monotheistic religion. meaning there is ONE God. Some people would state that there is just ONE TRUE GOD, the others are just idols. i would argue no, this argument by its very nature is polytheistic. it doesn't take into effect the gods that came before the Jewish god was ever thought of. so are those ideas of God wrong? No, our idea of God has evolved over time, due to our location and technology at hand. By this same argument, we then would still be on the losing side of the argument as our Christian God is actually the Jewish God in three parts. So who's right here? The Jewish one god of Yahweh, or the Chrisitian three-in-one God revealed through Jesus?

Could it be that God may allow for different routes, each with its own integrity? A Hindu may find a way to the top through withdrawl from the world, while a Christian may find it through immersion into the world on behalf of justice. Wouldn't God be in both places, if God is everywhere and created everything? Now a pure relativist will state "they're all just saying the same things. they're really no different." well no, they are REALLY different! The routes up the mountain engage different terrain, with different obstacles and challenges, different vistas, and different places of rest.

This illustates the fact that God's plan for the world is larger than our human minds can comprehend. Despite significant differences of approach to God, we are all included in God's love, which exceeds beyond our wildest imagination. Jesus states this in the bible as well.

JOHN 10:4-16 "I am the good shepherd. I know my own and my own know me, just as the Father knows me and I know the Father. And I lay down my life for the sheep. I have other sheep that do not belong to this fold. I must bring them also, and they will listen to my voice. So there will be one flock, one shepherd."

Some believe this is for the conversion of other faiths to Christianity... but let's look at what Jesus is and is not saying. He refers to other adherents of other faiths (other sheep...) who ALREADY belong to him (I have...) and therefore when he calls them they will listen. Jesus isn't calling for these sheep to change shepherds, he is trying to get us to recognize that the human family is one flock, with one shepherd. What he is NOT saying is "different strokes for different folks" nor is he saying "anyone can worship the god of one's choice, it's all good, no matter what." Which faiths? They aren't identified. We may surmise that faiths that truly follow the ONE Shephred actively promote the love of God, neighbor, and self as Jesus did. Jesus also states that people shouldn't worry about what path others are on. He demonstrates time and time again throughout the Gospels for his disciples to concentrate on walking their own path and offering hospitality to those they meet on along the way... the Good Samaritan parable is the core here. Who is my neighbor? EVERYONE!

So given this, it is naive for a practitioner of any faith to claim that theirs is the only "true" path. Religions do this to garner power over those too fearful to think in this way. Now there is a difference between BEST path for a person to take, so long as this claim is on an individual level. i would hope that these travelers up the mountain investigated other paths before choosing to climb.. there's no shame in this.

Can we claim which paths are rabbit trails or authentic? A quick test is to look at the measure of love of God, neighbor or self. But how could we really with any integrity? It would be like a climber speaking with authority about paths on the other side of the mountain that he has never been on. The climber may read about these paths in books... or have talked to another climber on the other side. This then, would prove to the climber that all paths seem to be heading to the same place. But any serious climber knows that only those who have climbed the path can speak with authority about where it leads and how it gets there. once again, to say that there are "other mountains" is a poly-mountain idea.. i'm only talking in a mono-mountain context.

If people of other faiths want to swap faithful stories of their path and journey up the mountain, then great! In fact, i get a better handle on my faith when i hear these stories. If people of other faiths with whom we are in dialogue decide to convert to our path as a result of this sharing, fine! However, conversion is not the ultimate purpose here of interfaith dialogue. Sharing the joy and wisdom gleaned from our climbing experience is.

Happy Climbing!

For the Bible Tells Me So

A 5th grade understanding of God is okay... if you're in the 5th grade!



We had an LGBT week here at LTS! I'm excited and glad to be at a place that is both welcoming and affirming. I would point to an exciting transcript of Mark Jordan's speech entitled "The Witness of LGBT Christians."

The last post was a crazy angry one.. but this is part of the deal! it's hard and lots of ideas to process. i'm still making sense of things as well.. but i'm slowly coming to a systematic theology, that is getting the vocabulary to express my belief system. that will come in time.. and a big part of the base of the belief will come next week! so i'll hope you'll stick around for that! hope all is well out there! keep rawk'n!

Struggles

I live for new ideas! I love other perspectives. I’m getting large dosages of both in and outside of class. Seminary is awesome. I really enjoy it here because I’m constantly challenged and engaged. I love MS106 because I can hear the stories of others and I absolutely love it. I go through my week giddy with all these things I’m learning.

We learn a lot of terms and concepts here but the biggest overall thing that I’m learning is responsibility. Religion, the Bible, and life in general for that matter is very complicated. It is irresponsible for people to overlook these complications to get what they want out of a text. Two groups that come immediately to mind are the fundamentalists and the atheists.

These groups are two vastly different approaches that share the same irresponsibility. The fundamentalists read the Bible literally and ignore all the other methods and even the tradition and history that spawned the Bible. They get what they want out of it. The atheists do much the same thing. They ignore all the criticisms and methods and just label all religion as “Hocus Pocus.” Both methods are irresponsible, as they take no steps away from what the groups comfort zones.
I think this is directly linked to comfort. This is a comfort that starts with a hunch and will not further explore it for fear of having to change. A dude in my class added "apathy” to this concept, and I too will add this in saying that these people do not want to challenge their worldviews and are apathetic about doing so.

Atheist i have less of a problem with however. they seem to be resisting worshipping a false idol... they have no idols! well, there's always the idol of self, consumerism, etc. but as jose miguel bonino said in his book Room to be People "Only a atheist can be a good Christian." of course both of these groups that i have problems with are presented much more simply here for brevity's sake and i realize that there's a larger more nuanced issue at hand, but this is a quick explanation of what i'm struggle'n with.

As I see it, we have a duty to study and find our way through the world, we have a responsibility to the world. I know my strong and weak points in learning. I know I’ll struggle with Greek and Hebrew as this is wrote memorization. I know my strong points are concepts and theologies. If I can play with concepts and apply them to other things, I have no problem learning. I guess I’m a process learner as I must learn through relationships. I might not have agreed with Plantinga in Theology 101, but I understand him and where he’s coming from. I cannot understand where fundamentalists are coming from.

It would be irresponsible of me to say that I do not have a comfort zone as well. I take great comfort in this seminary. I take comfort that people are looking at the Bible, are struggling and debating. I respect the work involved. I am depressed when people will not take these steps, either by literally reading (or reading into the Bible the words they want to hear) or by not reading it at all. Either way, no further steps are taken to get the story IN the text as well as the story OF the text or to put it another way, the story the text tells and then the story of how that text came about and was written. I am ready for more, keep the challenges coming.

Jesus was a liberal Jew

This is the AWESOMEST website in the history of websites! It's sooooo funny! Religion ain't all bad, of course, but this is funny stuff. Thus i continue my war upon the Heathen Christians! Glory!

Landover Baptist | Where the Worthwhile Worship. Unsaved Unwelcome.
We have a permanent injunction against all unsaved persons. If you are unsaved, you are not allowed within a 10-mile radius of our church, nor are you allowed on this website. Kindly leave, and be about the Devil's business, for you are not welcome here. Glory!

TAKE THAT CAMPUS CRUSADE! you heathens...

This Very Cool Column in the ol' college paper pretty much sums up my stance in recent minutes. I'm not too sure if i'm trying to win people over to Jesus, as just get them (and myself) to a better more compassionate place while on this planet (dimension, plane of existence, stage in the game, level in the mario world, dog dish in the apple pie).

I do have my own story with campus crusade. When i was a devout catholic fundie, i thought 180 would be an excellent place to go, after all, a friend was in it and was very popular and well liked. After hearing that all people who don't accept Jesus, people who accept him only half-heartedly, and people born before Jesus, all are going to/currently reside in hell, I was out.

Now i say enough of their tomfoolery and self-ped-stooling (look ma, i inventedly a new werd!). Yay for groups looking to do good, boo for groups of dorks just looking for a place to fit in and make fun of others.

wait... i just did that. Oh well! I (and those like me) TOTALLY RULE!