theophiles.org - Born Again, Sort Of

Written by laika

Sunday, 08 April 2012 12:57

At Slate:

Easter Sunday represents the foundational claim of Christian faith, the highest day of the Christian year as celebration of Jesus' resurrection. But many Christians are unsure what the claim that Jesus had been raised to new life after being crucified actually means—while non-Christians often find the whole idea of resurrection bemusing and even ridiculous.

These differences over what Jesus' resurrection represents and discomfort with the whole idea are nothing new, however: Christians in the first few centuries also had difficulty embracing the idea of a real, bodily resurrection. Then, as now, resurrection was not the favored post-death existence—people much preferred to think that after dying, souls headed to some ethereal realm of light and tranquility. During the Roman period, many regarded the body as a pitiful thing at best and at worst a real drag upon the soul, even a kind of prison from which the soul was liberated at death. So, it's not surprising that there were Christians who simply found bodily resurrection stupid and repugnant. To make the idea palatable, they instead interpreted all references to Jesus' resurrection in strictly spiritual terms. Some thought of Jesus as having shed his earthly body in his death, assuming a purely spiritual state, and returning to his original status in the divine realm. In other cases, Jesus' earthly body and his death were even seen as illusory, the divine Christ merely appearing to have a normal body (rather like Clark Kent!).

Comments

whitemice

|2012-04-10 06:03:29

I read the entire article. I failed to grasp what the author's final point or direction was; it reads a bit rambly.

But he's the same guy who took the silly Davinci Code to task while everybody else was fawning over it. So he gets the benefit of the doubt.

PineHall - The Physical Body

|2012-04-10 10:17:29

Even today there is a tendency to see the physical body as only a container. Many would say the real person does not need the body. I have that tendency, but scripture makes a bigger deal of the physical body. Am I being tainted by unbiblical Greek thought? What should the proper perspective be?

whitemice - Re: The Physical Body

|2012-04-10 12:29:13

I think it is taint; but it is easy. The psuedo-gnostic perspective is deeply ingrained in popular western culture (the 'heretics' achieved that). Everyone uses the term "soul" to mean the essence-of-the-person. I even find myself talking this way on occasion.

The Apostle's Creed states "the resurrection of the body" and most church doctrine is pretty clear. But it hasn't been communicated or taught very effectively [and oddly often the most ineffectively where teaching / preaching has the strongest emphasis].

Personally this has always been a relief for me. Belief in reconstructing the body isn't all that hard; believing in some utterly unknown state of bieng is hopeless (at least for me, I've never been anything other than this form). A greater emphasis on the physically of existence would take some wind out of the sails of many of the mockers and critics who equate religious practice with belief in ghosts and the like. It also degrades the absurd distinction people like to hide behind of being "spiritual" but not being "religious".

emperorbma

|2012-04-10 13:35:39

Actually, Martin Luther himself is an exemplary witness against the pseudo-gnostic notion of the "disembodied soul." As we already know, Luther rejected the notions of Purgatory and praying to the saints.

Following Ecclesiastes 9:5, where it says "the living know that they will die, but the dead know nothing; they have no further reward, and even the memory of them is forgotten," Luther also believed that the deceased are entirely unaware of anything except, in the case of the believers, the presence of God. In a sense, the person's soul is somehow "asleep" until the resurrection of the dead and any life it does experience is merely a part of the peace that God Himself gives not anything that is aware of this world.

We can see elements of this witness today even in common Lutheran practice because we Lutherans tend to believe that the deceased are "no longer suffering" and do not watch over this sinful realm since this would inevitably only cause them further distress at seeing our sufferings and pain. Christ Himself keeps them safe and at peace until the time of the Resurrection, when they will be with us again.

whitemice - The dirt nap

|2012-04-11 07:03:28

I grew up in a Lutheran community and I never heard the justification for the "soul sleep" / "dirt nap" (as they were called) part.

It is the "entirely unaware of anything except, in the case of the believers, the presence of God" part that I've always found puzzling. It seems a bit like a Protestant limbo.

It doesn't seem necessary. If I die, my body breaks down, I'm gone. At resurrection a body is reconstituted / recreated and I'm restored. Do I need to 'exist' anywhere other than in the memory of heaven? It gets existential, but I don't have any issues with the idea that *I* periodically don't exist. I didn't exist before I was conceived / born / gained-consciousness (pick your start point). I at least sort-of don't exist when I sleep [am I then just a memory of my brain?] Even awake I suspect I blink in and out of being "me" in any practical sense of the term. I can recognize all that without feeling my self-hood or identity is in jeopardy.

emperorbma

|2012-04-11 11:26:44

whitemice wrote:

It is the "entirely unaware of anything except, in the case of the believers, the presence of God" part that I've always found puzzling. It seems a bit like a Protestant limbo.

Pretty much this conception owes entirely to the words of Jesus. Christ says "this very day you shall be with me in Paradise" (Luke 23:43) to the thief on the cross. Furthermore, He describes the "bosom of Abraham" in Luke 16:19-28 and separates the lot of the unbelieving "Rich man" from the poor Lazarus in this "intermediate state." Complete awareness in this state, however, is not required by Scripture and is actually rejected by Scripture as I demonstrated from Ecclesiastes.

Effectively, as far as basic human nature is concerned, the Bible describes three basic aspects of human existence:
The first, obviously, is the physical body.
The second aspect is termed nephesh in Hebrew, and psyche or possibly zoe in Greek.
The third aspecct is termed ruach in Hebrew and pneuma in Greek.

The body, obviously, is mortal and dies and is buried. (i.e. "dust returns to dust")

The psyche is what is we usually see translated as "soul," but it refers better described as the "breath of life" and basic aspects of living being than as anything like the Greek conceptions. Pretty much all of this is inactive when a person is buried. (Psalm 16:10; i.e. "will not abandon my nephesh to Sheol")

Finally, the ruach is the "spirit." From the Biblical text, this does return to God when someone dies. (Ecclesiastes 12:7; the dust shall return to the dust and the ruach shall return to God who made it) Furthermore, it is demonstrably distinct from the "ruach hakodesh/pneuma hagiou" [Holy Spirit] which refers to God's own Spirit. (e.g. Romans 8:16; "His Pneuma testifies with our pneuma")

More than likely, in purely Biblical terms, the "soul sleep" is referring to the state of the ruach (spirit) rather than the nephesh. ("soul"/breath of life) Sure, the nephesh could easily be seen exactly as you describe; as not really existing anymore because the necessary union between spirit and body is broken by death. However, as Christ Himself testifies, a part of a person's existence is still very much active in the presence of God even after being buried and it is a pretty fair guess that this is the ruach which indisputably returns to God.

*Additional note: Sheol in the OT equivalent of "Hades" in NT and it is clearly distinct from Hell (Gehenna) until the Final Judgment; because it contains both faithful and unfaithful. At the Final Judgment, "Hades" will be cast into the lake of fire. Likewise, everyone will be resurrected but anyone who rejects Christ during the Resurrection experiences "second death" and is cast in to the same lake of fire. (Revelation 20:14) The "bosom of Abraham," then, is what is commonly termed as "Heaven" until the resurrection when the dead won't be dead any longer [and, thus, won't need it] and the physical [new] Heaven [and new Earth] is actualized. At that point, the "harrowing of Hell" that Jesus performed (per the Apostles Creed's "He descended into Hell" [i.e. Sheol] and 1 Peter 3:18) will be fully realized.

Long story short, the common conception that most Christians follow is the "readers' digest" version of the story and glosses a lot of the complicated and intricate details that exist within the full narrative. It is about as accurate as Newton's Laws are when compared with Einstein's General Relativity; not entirely false, but missing quite a lot of the underlying interactions...

whitemice

|2012-04-11 20:34:12

> Christ says "this very day you shall be with me in Paradise" (Luke 23:43)

But if crucified / dead perceive no passage of time - then it is 'this very day' in any case.

> to the thief on the cross. Furthermore, He describes the "bosom of Abraham"
> in Luke 16:19-28 and separates the lot of the unbelieving "Rich man"
> from the poor Lazarus in this "intermediate state."

I've never been sure how to read this passage. It reads very much like a parable, which using the conceptions of the day presses a point that is in keeping with the surrouding themes. And it is within a group of parables. On the other hand it is different from other parables in that very few parables take on fantastic imagery. And how to read Matthew 8:11 in light of a literalist reading of this text.

> Complete awareness in this state, however, is not required by Scripture
> and is actually rejected by Scripture as I demonstrated from Ecclesiastes.

I don't disagree with the soul-sleep interpretation. The texts mentioned are interesting. But neither am I convinced.

The scriptures always seem hesitent to deal clearly with the 'after life' or even angels and devils [spirits]. It is at least never recorded that Jesus laid it down: "Look guys, here is how it goes..." That in itself I think is a powerful hint as to what to focus on (Philippians 4:8 is a good mantra).

emperorbma - crux of the matter is "spirit"

|2012-04-12 09:51:17

whitemice wrote:

But if crucified / dead perceive no passage of time - then it is 'this very day' in any case.

That reading is only possible if, and only if, one supposed that Jesus did not include His own perspective on this "you will be with Me in Paradise." Otherwise, Jesus clearly could not have kept His promise since He did rise on the Third day.

The thing is, this is exactly the same kind of rationale that is behind the Sacramental presence of Christ in the Lord's Supper. He says "this is my body" and "this is my blood" and, by these statements, He is conferring the promise of His actual presence. Consequently, as Lutherans, we believe, teach and confess that He is actually present "in, with and under" the bread and wine. To say anything else, from our perspective, would be to impugn the character of Jesus.

whitemice wrote:

And how to read Matthew 8:11 in light of a literalist reading of this text.

That's easy enough, if we see the "bosom of Abraham" as a spiritual rather than a physical presence. The deceased may be present with Christ in spirit but they aren't present with Him in the flesh until they come and take their place after being resurrected.

One could raise the contrapositive concern about Christ's statement that "where two or three come together in my name, there am I with them," (Matthew 18:20) since none of us ever sees a physical copy of Jesus appear at these events but we all are aware of Him in Spirit. Obviously, the "spirit" interpretation is not lost in this latter case. Why would it be inconceivable in the former?

whitemice wrote:

The scriptures always seem hesitent to deal clearly with the 'after life' or even angels and devils [spirits]. It is at least never recorded that Jesus laid it down: "Look guys, here is how it goes..." That in itself I think is a powerful hint as to what to focus on (Philippians 4:8 is a good mantra).

While I agree that the Scriptures are sparse on the matter, I do believe there is enough material that is available to make a picture that the deceased aren't just "gone," but the spiritual part of them remains. For those who are in the Spirit, their spirit is alive in Christ. For those who are not in Christ, their spirit is still as dead as it ever was.

PineHall - Body, Soul, and Spirit

|2012-04-12 10:01:44

Some would say that the ancient Hebrews would combine all three together into "soul", and there was no distinction, Others would agree and would say the distinction evolved. And others would disagree. I think whatever viewpoint you take affects how we view our bodies. Any thoughts?

emperorbma

|2012-04-12 13:02:02

I don't think it's really a single datapoint. I think that it's more of a continuing work of Divine Inspiration that was fulfilled and culminated in Christ's redeeming work. (I guess you could say I take the "evolved" perspective, but look at it from the Holy Spirit's angle rather than man's)

It seems to me that Ancient Hebrew theology seems to have been a lot more "down to earth" in terms of its afterlife perspective. The first clear term for the afterlife we find in the Hebrew scriptures is Sheol, or "the grave." It doesn't take much imagination to think that this was probably a very practical term. In many ways, the basic outlook that existed during the earliest texts seems very similar to the Ancient Egyptian myths that "immortality" could be secured through the memories of others.

However, there was a wrench that was thrown into this purely materialistic perspective from the very get-go: God is immortal and God can remember everyone. This fact, of course, is alluded to when Christ says "in the account of the bush, even Moses showed that the dead rise, for he calls the Lord 'the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob." (Luke 20:37) There is always this spiritual undercurrent of God's influence that keeps death from being a complete finality. As a result of this, we have the Scriptures that say "dead men know nothing" (Ecclesiastes 9:5) and we also have the Scriptures that say "I know that my Redeemer lives and that in the end he will stand upon the earth. After my skin has been destroyed, yet in my flesh I will see God" (Job 19:25-26)

The entire history of the Hebrew Scripture seems to be building upon that hope that God Himself short-circuits the "Egyptian Book of the Dead" and gradually fleshing it out. During the ministry of Elisha, for example, we witness the first Scriptural resurrection. (2 Kings 4:18-37) Furthermore, as the people were exiled from their lands by the invasions of the Assyrians and the Babylonians, this theology seems to have developed a more eschatological shift which the contact with Cyrus's Zoroastrianism probably did much to aid.

As the coming of Christ approached, the notion of the "bosom of Abraham" began to coalesce and, thus, a belief that even though in Sheol some would still be experiencing God's peace and grace. With the crowning victory of Christ over death on the Cross, the basic picture of God's plan was completed so that the Early Church had the basic Christian theology of death and resurrection. Soteriology is directly linked into the promise of the resurrection. The Hebrews always had a notion of it, but it seems to have taken a while for them to have fully comprehended what it really meant.

laika

|2012-04-12 22:57:34

emperorbma wrote:

..."immortality" could be secured through the memories of others.

God is immortal and God can remember everyone.

Nice!

I hope He remembers me fondly.

laika - re: The Physical Body/The Taint

|2012-04-11 18:53:16

PineHall wrote:

Am I being tainted by unbiblical Greek thought? What should the proper perspective be?

Generally speaking, I believe that there is a Greek influence to much of the attitude toward the physical in the Church (as we know it). I was an adult before I understood that physical existence is important in the Bible. Growing up, I definitely got the impression that it was a spiritual realm that we aspired to and that all things physical were very much suspect.

You are certainly not alone in your tendency to discount the body.

PerpetualAgnostic

|2012-05-23 12:42:01

Would a bodily resurrection sidestep some concerns about mind-body dualism?

For example, suppose the content and behavior of one's mind is largely or completely a function of his physical brain (and the rest of his body). Then having a bodily resurrection would be closely related to an eternal soul, no?

emperorbma

|2012-05-23 20:23:25

PerpetualAgnostic wrote:

Would a bodily resurrection sidestep some concerns about mind-body dualism?

It depends.

On the one hand, it might reduce concerns about where the "cartesian theater." (that is, "which part of the brain" constructs the experience of being "you,") After all, the mind would not need to "broadcast" the experiences to "anything" because the mind itself would exist alongside the physical interactions. Even if it does require something else, it wouldn't require transmitting the entire sum of your brain each time.

However, it would not resolve other concerns. For example, consider the "beam me up Scotty" problem. If someone creates an exact copy of you and destroys the original, like Star Trek teleporters are believed to do, would the resulting person at the destination still be the same "you" or did someone just unwittingly commit murder? If the sum of the human soul boils down to merely physical emergent properties of the brain, then one would necessarily have to believe that the copy is the same as the original if it was copied exactly. Analogically, this could be seen as similar to the resurrection noting that God is doing the reconstituing of us after we die a natural death.

Now suppose that the original was NOT destroyed. Did we just copy a person completely? What would this be like from an existential standpoint? Would you have some vague awareness of your double due to some kind of entanglement? Would you both have distinct experiences of reality, which raises the question of who exactly has congruity with the "original experience" of being "you?" Supposing this was done in a place we weren't observing, how could we tell which person was which, scientifically? Taking it from a purely non-dualistic standpoint merely has the flip side of the philosophical problem in dualism.

As I see it, this would simply be a different "can of worms" rather than a solid answer for all of the potential objections created by "mind-body dualism."

Perhaps God somehow "reattaches" or "resyncs" something at the Resurrection that our science hasn't yet quantified? If that is the case, the emergent properties of the human brain's self-consciousness could be entangled with whatever "else" is necessary. Could we "discover" these properties? If so, then it can create effectively the same situation as above because, Scientifically speaking, we can not only enact resurrections but also clone people "mind, body and soul" if a person can be merely boiled to that.

Otherwise, it would have to be an element be unique to God's power and I suspect that as far as Christian theology is concerned, a soul can't really be equated simply with a physically emergent property of the brain. It can certainly involve that, but at some level it must involve some sort of transcendent component that establishes the uniqueness of each individual personal instance. Otherwise we would need to defy human intuition and suggest that you and your hypothetical clone are really the same person in spite of the myriad of evidence showing both copies going on divergent paths. Likewise, we can create an infinite number of "yous" with their own life stories just like in the Quantum Mechanical "multiple universe" interpretation.

Resurrection, from Scripture, seems to need to be a phenomenon unique to God rather than a natural principle that He has created and designed in a way that we can exploit.

Long story short, I don't think it completely resolves the problem of "mind-body dualism" since it wouldn't get rid of the requirement of a transcendent component...

PineHall - Defining "You"

|2012-05-24 09:47:31

That got me thinking about the science fiction stories of transferring the "You", the information stored in your brain, from your body into a new body. Basically it is putting your programming into a new body. I don't think it is that simple because I think the body affects that information and I believe there is information found indirectly in the rest of the body. So could a calm and rational person in a new and different body become irrational and sensitive person with a different personality? I think it would be possible. (Sort of like Junk DNA that has been found to be really not junk.)

In the same way at the Resurrection, I see our perfect bodies as being a necessary part of our restoration to make us into who we really are (or suppose to be, free from sin). So I guess I am arguing that the soul is incomplete without the physical body.

emperorbma - dynamic continuity

|2012-05-24 10:22:36

PineHall wrote:

So I guess I am arguing that the soul is incomplete without the physical body.

We have demonstrated medically that the human body replaces pretty much everything within itself every few years in terms of materials. In that sense, we might argue, that we are different people from day to day and minute to minute. However, I tend to think of human consciousness and being as somewhat of a dynamic continuity that is carried forward and linked to the physical processes but which, in many ways, transcends it as well. Consequently, that dynamic continuity is broken clearly with death and, less clearly, with my hypothetical scenario above but I think it's something that only God really understands at this point.

However, in the basic sense, I agree with your assessment. A soul without a body is impoverished and incomplete...

vlalston

|2012-04-14 21:06:54

Not quite sure what the author's point here is. A bit confusing. Care to clarify?

http://vincentalston.blogspot.com/p/how-to-get-...

whitemice - SPAM?

|2012-04-15 08:27:21

I think this is forum SPAM.

emperorbma - re: "I don't like SPAM"

|2012-04-15 13:42:33

whitemice wrote:

I think this is forum SPAM.

Hmm. An interesting sort of it, if I might add. If you are right they either have a random quote generator tacked on or they are paying someone to shill with minimally relevant comments.

What say you, other admins, about this parrot?

whitemice

|2012-04-16 06:36:46

They ping my BLOB pretty regularly. Some bland statement followed by a link. The same thing shows up over in the Romney thread.

whitemice

|2012-04-16 06:43:33

Obviously that is BLOG and not BLOB, although I have been accused of being a BLOB in the past.

whitemice - re: re: The Physical Body/The Taint

|2012-04-15 09:01:38

laika wrote:

You are certainly not alone in your tendency to discount the body.

+1

Drat! You've made me add to my list of sermon's I want to hear before I die. (How sad is it that my bucket list includes sermons? I'm seriously lame.)

Once in conversation a pastor said he was working on a sermon titled "Let's here it for rules! I'm pro rules." Sadly he wussed out and never gave that sermon. But I've been listening for it, from someone, ever since.

Now I'm adding "Christianity of the flesh and bone" to my list. I suppose that makes it a list - since it now has two entries. But it does sound like something I might find in an Orthodox podcast (they can be refreshingly relevent after years of listening to so many protestants [no, not all of them] sneak around coming to a point).

whitemice - re: crux of the matter is "spirit"

|2012-04-15 09:44:13

>> quote: whitemice
>> crucified / dead perceive no passage of time - then it is 'this very day'
>> in any case.[/quote]
> quote: emporerobama
> That reading is only possible if, and only if, one supposed that Jesus did not
> include His own perspective on this "you will be with Me in Paradise." Otherwise,
> Jesus clearly could not have kept His promise since He did rise on the Third day.

Conversely, it is only a problem if I assume Jesus did include his own perspective in that statement.

Doesn't the idea that Christ descended into hell/hades/sheol and on the third day rose again also pose a problem for the literal parsing of that text? Did Christ see the crucified thief in hell? (which could be some very dark comedy indeed; I'm not seriously implying that, but it is a question I've heard, so it isn't entirely whacked.).

I'm aware Calvin discarded 'the descent', and that Luther struggled with 1 Peter 3:18-19 (and maybe Ephesians 4:9).

To be clear - I'm not so much *arguing* with your interpretation. It think we may agree on many more things than it may appear. But for me these systematic constructs express more confidence in themselves that I feel they merit. There is a some of - if I interpret passage A as meaning X then passage B can be reconciled with passage A, but if I started from B first, then I might interpret A as meaning Y.

> quote: emporerobama
> The thing is, this is exactly the same kind of rationale that is behind the Sacramental
> presence of Christ in the Lord's Supper. He says "this is my body" and "this is my blood"
> and, by these statements, He is conferring the promise of His actual presence.

Yes, his presence, be that through transubstantition or representational, a presence in something that can be physically consumed.

My question is how confidently that same notion can be swung around in the other direction and applied to the human after-life. Christ is god.

>> quote: whitemice
>> And how to read Matthew 8:11 in light of a literalist reading of this text.[/quote]
> quote: emporerobama
> That's easy enough, if we see the "bosom of Abraham" as a spiritual rather than a physical
> presence.
...
> One could raise the contrapositive concern about Christ's statement that "where two or three
> come together in my name, there am I with them" (Matthew 18:20) since none of us ever sees
> a physical copy of Jesus appear at these events but we all are aware of Him in Spirit.
> Obviously, the "spirit" interpretation is not lost in this latter case. Why would it be
> inconceivable in the former?

Which is kind of my point. If it isn't a "physcial presence" as in proximity-and-awareness but is a "spiritual presence"... I'm no really certain what that means. I have no problem with Matthew 18:20, I think most people implicitly understand that kind of statement. Taking the same kind of understanding and leaping to the after-life is a larger intellectual jump than many systematic theologians give it credit for being. It isn't "inconceivable", it is just "further". You are jumping from talking about people who are 'gathered' (in the very conventional sense) and undoubtedly aware (in the very conventional sense) to the scattered (in both time and space) deceased.

emperorbma

|2012-04-15 13:31:25

whitemice wrote:

> quote: emporerobama

Just to correct this, "emperorbma" = "emperor" + my real-life name initials. You're not the first to confuse it with "obama" and you won't be the last, I'm sure. :P

whitemice wrote:

To be clear - I'm not so much *arguing* with your interpretation. It think we may agree on many more things than it may appear.

Fair enough. As the Scriptures say "The secret things belong to the LORD our God, but the things revealed belong to us and to our children forever." (Deuteronomy 29:29) I'm content to say this might be one of those secrets.

whitemice wrote:

You are jumping from talking about people who are 'gathered' (in the very conventional sense) and undoubtedly aware (in the very conventional sense) to the scattered (in both time and space) deceased.

Fair enough, I'll admit this is a leap. I think what facilitates such a leap is the understanding of God being "all in all," and through that [volitionally defined] omnipresence making this gathering possible.

vlalston

|2012-04-25 00:25:04

I think you just have to believe for yourself.

dieting for weight loss

emperorbma

|2012-04-25 01:34:35

Hmm. I wonder if we can train it like a chatterbot...

whitemice

|2012-04-26 10:01:19

I think we are under 'attack'. The following users just joined the site -
Tollanene
wqcdrdfzqop
Lelijalkejume

whitemice

|2012-04-26 10:01:31

Do we have an active administrator?

emperorbma

|2012-04-26 18:03:54

whitemice wrote:

I think we are under 'attack'. The following users just joined the site -

Hmm, I've noticed lots of weird random names but they have been around for ages and don't seem to do all that much. Only this vlalston has actually made any visible posts. Perhaps it isn't the comments but the user profiles that they are using if there are bots among these masses...

whitemice wrote:

Do we have an active administrator?

Yes, but I'm still awaiting my response to "What say you, other admins, about this parrot?"

laika

|2012-05-03 00:48:20

emperorbma wrote:

...I'm still awaiting my response to "What say you, other admins, about this parrot?"

Sorry, I missed that. But I don't understand these things, so I have no response. It strikes me as mildly interesting if it's benign, though.

emperorbma - This parrot...

|2012-05-03 01:02:40

Probably just a troll or something, I'd guess...

Also, didn't catch my Monty Python ref did you? :P

(anyone who gets that can probably guess what my opinion on what we should do is...)

laika - re: This parrot...

|2012-05-03 10:55:58

Sorry, I missed the reference. Inspector Clouseau's inflatable parrot was the first thing that popped into my head when you pointed out that it was a pop culture reference.

emperorbma - ... is no more

|2012-05-03 16:44:57

Two of their skits are "I don't like Spam!" and "This parrot is no more! It has ceased to be!" In a way I'm kind of conflating the two and probably being too witty for my own good. :P

laika - re: ... is no more

|2012-05-05 10:36:26

emperorbma wrote:

...probably being too witty for my own good. :P

Nah, just too witty for me :) Others among our huge (and growing) community doubtless enjoyed a hearty chuckle at your cleverness.

holmegm

|2012-05-21 13:10:28

It is garden variety comment spam. The only reason not to delete it now is all the responses attached to it.

Only registered users can write comments!

Our valuable member laika has been with us since Thursday, 03 April 2008.

Show Other Articles

On a Wave of Jubilation* (17 May 2013)
Survey: Provo-Orem area most religious in US (07 April 2013)
Shroud of Turin in the news again (29 March 2013)
War on Christmas Heats Up (12 March 2013)
The Next Bible (12 March 2013)

Feeds

Make a Donation

Current Poll

Support Us!

Latest News

Latest Journals

3.20 Copyright (C) 2007 Alain Georgette / Copyright (C) 2006 Frantisek Hliva. All rights reserved."

Popular

Statistics

Who's Online