Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

At World Youth Day, Pope’s leading Italian bishop suggests Sodom wasn’t destroyed
Life Site News ^ | 9 August 2016 | Patrick B. Craine

Posted on 08/10/2016 1:58:53 PM PDT by redleghunter

August 9, 2016 (LifeSiteNews) – Italian Bishop Nunzio Galantino, a personal appointee of the pope and a prelate who has been extolled as the “prototypical ‘Pope Francis bishop,’” is coming under criticism after delivering a homily to young people at World Youth Day in which he rewrote the story of God’s destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah.

While the clear meaning of the text is to emphasize God’s hatred of sin, in the bishop’s telling the message of the story is about Abraham’s willingness to emphasize “positive possibilities” and "signs of hope" despite the “misdeeds” of the people of Sodom.

It’s an interpretation that fits less with Catholic tradition than with the grievous admonition from the Extraordinary Synod on the Family that the Church should emphasize the “positive aspects” of mortally sinful lifestyles.

Here is what Bishop Galantino said, according to a translation provided by author and commentator Rod Dreher:

The intense dialogue between God and Abraham in the first reading tell us about prayer. And it’s about prayer that Jesus is asked in the Gospel. A prayer which is not an escape from troubles and responsibility, but a live experience made of listening and answering, through which God creates an authentic relationship and pushes us to be daring. As daring as Abraham’s intercession prayer in favor of Sodom. A city upon which nobody would have bet a dime. His intercession prayer and his will to dare save Sodom. The city is saved because some righteous ones are there, even though a few of them. But the city is saved above all because Abraham, a man of prayer, is not a relentless accuser, he doesn’t speak against but in favor. Abraham, man of prayer, doesn’t point to the misdeeds, but he announces the possibility for something new. Abraham, man of prayer, announces and invites to look at the positive possibilities. Abraham, man of prayer, is a tireless searcher for sign of hopes to present to the Lord for Him to give them value.


TOPICS: Theology
KEYWORDS: genesis; popefrances; religiousleft; scripture; sodom
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081 next last
To: LukeL

Sorry I do not agree with:

“When you demand celibacy you take away a good screening process”

Evil will do its deeds wither one vows celibacy or not, especially when the sins of the flesh are a mans weakness (his demon). There is no screening for celibacy or non-celibacy practiced today. However there is currently a mindset of excuses and diversion from accountability even in the clergy. There should not be, when one Sins especially in this area there needs to be both Accountability, forgiveness (when there is true repetitiveness), and an active involvement to ensure individuals are not allowed/put into the positions that could foster a relapse, both by the individual and those around him. This is True for more than just the clergy, this is True for our Society in General but how many are willing to call Sins, which are Ill-Moral, Self destructive, behaviors out into the light? Thus why we are where we are now.

Just a test question (for any reader) when was the last time you told a friend their lust after “X”, or story of conquest with another lover “Y”... are Mortal Sins and their Souls are in Danger?

God Bless


21 posted on 08/10/2016 4:50:56 PM PDT by jafojeffsurf (Return to the Christendom, A Moral People, and Return to a Nation/s UNDER God!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: heterosupremacist

There is certainly a koine Greek word for cousin.


22 posted on 08/10/2016 5:03:54 PM PDT by Fantasywriter (Any attempt to do forensic work using Internet artifacts is fraught with pitfalls. JoeProbono)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: redleghunter

Sodom is not gone, it just relocated to San Francisco.


23 posted on 08/10/2016 5:06:32 PM PDT by King Moonracer (Bad lighting and cheap fabric, that's how you sell clothing.....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: heterosupremacist

Is that what the priest told you? This is America, in the Year of Our Lord 2016. You do not have to take someone else’s word for it. You can actually look it up for yourself. The gospels CLEARLY state that Joseph and Mary had sons and daughters together after Christ was virgin-born.

The locals in Nazareth were puzzled by the ministry and miracles of Jesus; at one point remarking that He was the (supposed) son of Joseph; and, of course, Mary.....and that His brothers and sisters were well known in the neighborhood and synagogue. Read all about it.

First of all, when Mary became pregnant by the Holy Spirit, God assured Joseph in a dream that he should stay with Mary, marry her and name the Holy Child Jesus. And then it goes on to say that Joseph took her as his wife, but did not “know” her until after the Christ child was born.

This clearly implies that he DID “know” her after Christ’s birth. So much for perpetual virginity. God forbid that I should be unkind, and I do not mean to be. But what does it say about unkindness that certain clergy would spin a yarn about “perpetual virginity” and then perpetuate it through the millenia, when the gospels clearly say otherwise? I hope you make the effort to read up on it and smoke out the truth for yourself.


24 posted on 08/10/2016 5:53:56 PM PDT by Tucker39 (Welcome to America! Now speak English; and keep to the right....In driving, in Faith, and politics.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Blue Collar Christian
Sodom was destroyed, and the ruins are still there.

Maybe a local cafe managed to survive. :o)

WHO CARES?!

25 posted on 08/10/2016 9:37:44 PM PDT by cloudmountain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Tucker39
The ancient Jews didn't have the "cousin" connection in their vocabulary so all those "brothers and sisters" were, in fact, cousins. That SEEMS to be the general understanding today.

Carpenters were professionals back then and worked in wood, a precious commodity. The Bible said that Joseph was a poor man who worked with "hard substances."
As a poor man he probably worked in the limestone mines. They are STILL in operation today in Israel. The area has MANY limestone mines, all still operational.

26 posted on 08/10/2016 9:43:00 PM PDT by cloudmountain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Tucker39

Post #24:
~ “The gospels CLEARLY state that Joseph and Mary had sons and daughters together after Christ was virgin-born.” ~

Those who deny Mary’s perpetual virginity most commonly refer to two texts:
Matthew 13:55-56: Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not his mother called Mary? And are not his brethren James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? And are not all of his sisters with us?
Matthew 1:24-25: And Joseph rising up from sleep, did as the angel of the Lord had commanded him, and took unto him his wife. And he knew her not till she brought forth her firstborn (Gk. prototokon) son: and he called his name Jesus. (Douay-Rheims)

A surface reading of these passages seems problematic. If Jesus had “brothers” and “sisters,” would not Mary have had other children? If Jesus was Mary’s “firstborn,” would there not be at least a second-born? And if “he knew her not till,” did he not then “know her” at some point? We’ll begin with Matthew 13:55-56.

Oh, Brother!

First, we must understand that the term brother has a wide semantic range in Scripture. It can mean a uterine brother, an extended relative, or even a spiritual brother. In Genesis 13:8 and 14:12, we read of one example of brother being used to describe an extended relationship: Abraham and Lot. Though they were actually uncle and nephew, they called one another “brother.” Moreover, in the New Testament, Jesus told us to call one another “brothers” in Matthew 23:8. The passage obviously does not mean to suggest that all Christians have the same physical mother.

Second, if we examine more closely the example of James, one of these four “brothers of the Lord” mentioned in Matthew 13:55, we discover him to be a cousin or some other relative of Jesus rather than a uterine brother. For example, Galatians 1:18-19 informs us: “Then after three years I [Paul] went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas, and remained with him fifteen days. But I saw none of the other apostles except James the Lord’s brother.”

Notice, the “James” of whom Paul was speaking was both a “brother of the Lord” and an “apostle.” There are two apostles named James among the 12. The first James is revealed to be a “son of Zebedee.” He most likely would not be the “James” referred to because according to Acts 12:1-2 he was martyred very early on. Even if it was him, his father was named Zebedee, not Joseph.

Paul more likely is referring to the second James who was an apostle, according to Luke 6:15-16. This James is revealed to have a father named Alphaeus, not Joseph. Thus, James the apostle and Jesus were not uterine brothers. Easy enough. Some will argue, however, that this “James” was not an apostle or that he was not one of the original 12. Though this is a possibility—others in the New Testament, such as Barnabas in Acts 14, are referred to as “apostles” in a looser sense—the argument from Scripture is weak. When Paul wrote about going “up to Jerusalem” to see Peter, he was writing about an event that occurred many years earlier, shortly after he had converted. He was basically going up to the apostles to receive approval lest he “should be running or had run in vain.” It would be more likely he would have here been speaking about “apostles” (proper), or “the twelve.”

But for those inclined to argue the point, the Catechism of the Catholic Church uses another line of reasoning:

The Church has always understood these passages as not referring to other children of the Virgin Mary. In fact James and Joseph, “brothers of Jesus,” are the sons of another Mary, a disciple of Christ, whom St. Matthew significantly calls “the other Mary.” They are close relations of Jesus, according to an Old Testament expression. (CCC 500)

The Catechism here refers to the fact that 14 chapters after we find the “brothers” of the Lord listed as “James, Joseph, Simon and Judas,” we find “James and Joseph” mentioned again, but this time their mother is revealed as being named Mary, but not Mary, the Mother of Jesus. We can conclude that “James and Joseph” are “brothers” of Jesus, but they are not uterine brothers.

But what about Matthew 1:24-25, and the claim Jesus was Mary’s “firstborn son” and that Joseph “knew her not until” Christ was born? Does Matthew here teach that Mary had other children?

Exodus 13:1-2 reveals something very important about the firstborn in Israel: “The Lord said to Moses, ‘Consecrate to me all the firstborn; whatever is the first to open the womb among the people of Israel, both of man and beast, is mine.’”

The “firstborn” were not given the title because there was a “second-born.” They were called “firstborn” at birth. Jesus being “firstborn” does not require that more siblings be born after him.

Until Then

Scripture’s statement that Joseph “knew [Mary] not until she brought forth her firstborn” would not necessarily mean they did “know” each other after she brought forth Jesus. Until is often used in Scripture as part of an idiomatic expression similar to our own usage in English. I may say to you, “Until we meet again, God bless you.” Does that necessarily mean after we meet again, God curse you? By no means. A phrase like this is used to emphasize what is being described before the until is fulfilled. It is not intended to say anything about the future beyond that point. Here are some biblical examples:
2 Samuel 6:23: And Michal the daughter of Saul had no child to (until) the day of her death. (Does this mean she had children after she died?)
1 Timothy 4:13: Until I come, attend to the public reading of scripture, to preaching, to teaching. (Does this mean Timothy should stop teaching after Paul comes?)
1 Corinthians 15:25: For he (Christ) must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. (Does this mean Christ’s reign will end? By no means! Luke 1:33 says, “he will reign over the house of Jacob forever and of his kingdom there shall be no end.”)

In recent years, some have argued that because Matthew 1:25 uses the Greek words heos hou for “until” whereas the texts I mentioned above from the New Testament use heos alone, there is a difference in meaning. The argument goes that Heos hou indicates the action of the first clause does not continue. Thus, Mary and Joseph “not having come together” would have ended after Jesus was born.

The problems with this theory begin with the fact that no available scholarship concurs with it. In fact, the evidence proves the contrary. Heos hou and heos are used interchangeably and have the same meaning. Acts 25:21 should suffice to clear up the matter: “But when Paul had appealed to be kept in custody for the decision of the emperor, I commanded him to be held until (Gk. heos hou) I could send him to Caesar.”

Does this text mean that Paul would not be held in custody after he was “sent” to Caesar? Not according to the biblical record. He would be held in custody while in transit (see Acts 27:1) and after he arrived in Rome for a time (see Acts 29:16). The action of the main clause did not cease with heos hou.

The Affirmative Argument

Now let’s look at some reasons to believe in Mary’s perpetual virginity. Among the many we could examine, we will briefly consider three:

1. In Luke 1:34, when Mary was told by the angel Gabriel that she was chosen to be the Mother of the Messiah, she asked the question, literally translated from the Greek, “How shall this be since I know not man?” This question makes no sense unless Mary had a vow of virginity.

When we consider that Mary and Joseph were already “espoused,” according to verse 27 of this same chapter, we understand Mary and Joseph already have what would be akin to a ratified marriage in the New Covenant. They were married. That would mean Joseph would have had the right to the marriage bed. Normally, after the espousal the husband would go off and prepare a home for his new bride and then come and receive her into his home where the union would be consummated. This is precisely why Joseph intended to “divorce her quietly” (Mt 1:19) when he later discovered she was pregnant.

This background is significant because a newly married woman would not ask the question “How shall this be?” She would know—unless, of course, that woman had taken a vow of virginity. Mary believed the message, but wanted to know how this was going to be accomplished. This indicates she was not planning on the normal course of events for her future with Joseph.

2. In John 19:26, Jesus gave his Mother to the care of John even though by law the next eldest sibling would have the responsibility to care for her. It is unthinkable that Jesus would take his Mother away from his family in disobedience to the law.

Some claim Jesus did this because his brothers and sisters were not there. They had left him. Thus, Jesus committed his Mother to John, who was faithful and present at the foot of the cross. This claim betrays a very low and unbiblical Christology. As John tells us, Jesus “knew all men” (cf. Jn 2:25). If James were his uterine brother, Jesus would have known he would be faithful along with his “brother” Jude. The fact is Jesus had no brothers and sisters, so he had the responsibility, on a human level, to take care of his Mother.

3. Mary is depicted as the spouse of the Holy Spirit in Scripture. In Luke 1:34, when Mary asks the angel how she will conceive a child, the angel responds: “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be called holy, the Son of God.”

This is nuptial language hearkening back to Ruth 3:8, where Ruth said to Boaz “spread your skirt over me” when she revealed to him his duty to marry her according to the law of Deuteronomy 25. When Mary became pregnant, Joseph would have been required to divorce her because she would then belong to another (see Dt 24:1-4; Jer 3:1). But when Joseph found out that “the other” was the Holy Spirit, the idea of his having conjugal relations with Mary was not a consideration.

Mary’s Protector

An obvious question remains: Why did St. Joseph then “take [Mary] his wife” according to Matthew 1:24 if she belonged to the Holy Spirit?

The Holy Spirit is Mary’s spouse, but Joseph was her spouse and protector on this earth for at least two obvious reasons. First, as Matthew points out in his genealogy in chapter 1, Joseph was in line to be a successor of David as King of Israel. Thus, if Jesus was to be the true “son of David” and king of Israel (see 2 Sm 7:14, Heb 1:5, Rv 19:16, 22:16), he needed to be the son of Joseph. As the only son of Joseph, even though adopted, he would have been in line for the throne.

Also, in a culture that did not take too kindly to espoused women getting pregnant by someone other than their spouse, Mary would have been in mortal danger. So Joseph became Mary’s earthly spouse and protector as well as the protector of the child Jesus.


27 posted on 08/11/2016 3:14:12 AM PDT by heterosupremacist (("Resistance to tyrants is obedience to God." Thomas Jefferson))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: heterosupremacist

Whatever does it for you.
Have a nice forever.
Goodbye.


28 posted on 08/11/2016 3:30:05 AM PDT by Tucker39 (Welcome to America! Now speak English; and keep to the right....In driving, in Faith, and politics.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Tucker39

I led the horse to water, but it refused to drink.

God bless you...


29 posted on 08/11/2016 3:34:32 AM PDT by heterosupremacist (("Resistance to tyrants is obedience to God." Thomas Jefferson))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: cloudmountain

In fact the Koine Greek word for cousin appears in the NT. If you’re able to read Greek I’ll give you the passage. If not, I’ll walk you through it. Let me know which you’d prefer.


30 posted on 08/11/2016 5:58:43 AM PDT by Fantasywriter (Any attempt to do forensic work using Internet artifacts is fraught with pitfalls. JoeProbono)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Tucker39

Tucker, it’s untrue that the NT writers had no word for ‘cousin.’ They did, and used it.

Also, your analysis above is excellent. Jesus spoke to the Pharisees re the danger of preferring the traditions of man to the Word of God. The danger of that error never ceases


31 posted on 08/11/2016 6:03:45 AM PDT by Fantasywriter (Any attempt to do forensic work using Internet artifacts is fraught with pitfalls. JoeProbono)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Fantasywriter

Thanks. Occasionally people miss their “calling”. IMHO, someone THAT skillful at twisting and looping should be making pretzels.


32 posted on 08/11/2016 6:15:54 AM PDT by Tucker39 (Welcome to America! Now speak English; and keep to the right....In driving, in Faith, and politics.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Tucker39

I would laugh, but you don’t know the half of it. Catholics don’t even believe Mary gave birth. Rather, they believe she was pregnant one minute, and the next minute the baby Jesus poofed into the air in front of her. No labor, no pain, no delivery; just a sudden dematerialization from the womb along with a simultaneous materialization in the air.

In anyone can find that account of Jesus’ birth in the Bible, they need glasses bad.


33 posted on 08/11/2016 7:18:57 AM PDT by Fantasywriter (Any attempt to do forensic work using Internet artifacts is fraught with pitfalls. JoeProbono)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: heterosupremacist

The authors of the NT, inspired by the Holy Spirit, would not have used the Greek word for ‘brother’ if they’d meant ‘cousin.’ They had a word for ‘cousin,’ and for clarity’s sake they’d have used it. [The the Scriptures were not written to confuse us, but to edify us.]

Even if, for some inexplicable reason, the authors had opted to use brother when they meant cousin, the grammatical construction is wrong. Take it from an expert:

Note: I tried to copy the relevant text, but the formatting, Greek and Hebrew made it unreadable. You need to go straight to the link:

http://biblehub.com/greek/80.htm


34 posted on 08/11/2016 7:23:12 AM PDT by Fantasywriter (Any attempt to do forensic work using Internet artifacts is fraught with pitfalls. JoeProbono)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Fantasywriter
Catholics don’t even believe Mary gave birth. Rather, they believe she was pregnant one minute, and the next minute the baby Jesus poofed into the air in front of her. No labor, no pain, no delivery; just a sudden dematerialization from the womb along with a simultaneous materialization in the air.

Anti-Catholics must be the most gullible people in the world! (Or did you make that up yourself?)

35 posted on 08/11/2016 7:33:14 AM PDT by maryz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: maryz
There is no need to be nasty. Why would I make something like that up? It would never enter my mind.

As it happens, a Catholic explained to me the way Jesus was said (within her faith tradition) to have been born. Your snide comment led me to believe I'd been misled. However, I found this as the first item of my first search:

Mary's Virginity During Jesus' Birth

The Pro-Life Memorial which was dedicated on June 26 in Emmitsburg, Md., portraying Our Lady laying on a bed of straw after having delivered baby Jesus is not in line with the teaching of our Roman Catholic faith. Our Lady was a virgin before, during and after the birth of Jesus. Mary's holy body was totally intact during the birth of Jesus.

We as Catholics firmly believe that Mary is "ever virgin." The Catechism of the Catholic Church asserts, "The deepening of faith in the virginal motherhood led the Church to confess Mary's real and perpetual virginity even in the act of giving birth to the Son of God made man." This statement reflects a more precise dogmatic statement issued at the First Lateran Council: "If anyone does not, according to the holy Fathers, confess truly and properly that holy Mary, ever virgin and immaculate, is Mother of God, since in this latter age she conceived in true reality without human seed from the Holy Spirit, God the Word Himself, who before the ages was begotten of God the Father, and gave birth to Him without injury, her virginity remaining equally inviolate after the birth, let him be condemned."

Underlying this statement is the Church's consistent defense of the Incarnation: Jesus, second person of the Holy Trinity, true God from eternity, consubstantial with the Father, entered this world through the Blessed Virgin Mary who had conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit; therefore, we believe Jesus is true God and true man, with both a divine and human nature.

The perpetual virginity of Mary, as stated in the reader's comments, has traditionally been defended and examined in three parts: Mary's conception of Christ (); her giving birth to Christ (); and her remaining a virgin after the birth of Christ (). This formulation was used by many of the early Church Fathers—St. Augustine, St. Peter Chrysologus, Pope St. Leo the Great, St. Gregory Nazianzus and St. Gregory Nyssa.

Mary's virginity prior to the conception of Christ is quite clear from the Gospels of St. Matthew and St. Luke, where she is clearly identified as "a virgin." Moreover, when the Archangel Gabriel announced to Mary that she would bear the Messiah, she responded, "How can this be since I do not know man?" indicating her virginity.

At the other end of the spectrum is Mary's virginity after the birth of Christ. In a previous article, concerning whether Jesus had blood brothers and sisters, this question was dealt with in detail. (ACH 7/21/94) Succinctly, we as Catholics believe that Mary and Joseph did not have other children after the birth of Christ. No evidence exists either in Sacred Scripture or Tradition to believe otherwise.

'The troublesome part is the middle—Mary's virginity in giving birth to Christ. We remember that one of the sufferings inherited because of original sin is that of "child bearing pains": The Lord God said to Eve, "I will intensify the pangs of your childbearing; in pain shall you bring forth children." (Gen 3:16) Since Mary was free of original sin by her Immaculate Conception, she would be free of "child bearing pain." In wrestling with this belief, the early Church Fathers then struggled to explain this virginity. The Western Fathers seemed to emphasize Mary's physical integrity; for instance, Pope St. Leo the Great said, "She (Mary) brought Him forth without the loss of virginity, even as she conceived him without its loss...(Jesus Christ was) born from the Virgin's womb because it was a miraculous birth."'

http://www.ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/DURBIRTH.HTM

36 posted on 08/11/2016 7:48:33 AM PDT by Fantasywriter (Any attempt to do forensic work using Internet artifacts is fraught with pitfalls. JoeProbono)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Fantasywriter
That's not what you said in your ridiculous parody.
37 posted on 08/11/2016 7:56:53 AM PDT by maryz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: cloudmountain

I care. Archeology supports the Bible while many archaeologists (and other scientists) ply their science(s) in efforts to disprove God, and then their discovers do not provide sufficient data to accomplish their goals.

I leave the explanation for the destruction of this ancient city with its nearly pure sulfur bombs to the skeptics. I’ll use the Bible’s thruths which need no revisions to remain relevant.


38 posted on 08/11/2016 7:59:56 AM PDT by Blue Collar Christian (Broom Hillary MUST be stopped.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: maryz

Here’s another one. As you read it, ask yourself how Jesus passing through Mary as light passes through a window-pane is any different than what I originally described:

‘The virgin birth is that Christ miraculously passed from the uterus through the vaginal opening without altering the physical state of Mary. By way of analogy, consider that light passes through a glass window without altering the window. Mary’s miraculous birth would entail the absence of pain. The absence of labor pains is a logical conclusion from Mary’s dogmatically defined Virgin Birth. In addition, Mary’s being conceived without sin spares her from the temporal effects of original sin—including the curse of labor given to Eve and her descendants.’

http://catholicexchange.com/did-mary-experience-labor-pains


39 posted on 08/11/2016 8:00:31 AM PDT by Fantasywriter (Any attempt to do forensic work using Internet artifacts is fraught with pitfalls. JoeProbono)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: maryz

It wasn’t a parody. It was based on a sacred painting that I have seen—and perhaps you have too—of the little baby Jesus hovering in the air in front of Mary. Upon inquiry I was told that this was the method by which Jesus [is said by Catholics] to have been born.

How is it gullible to believe what Catholics tell me? I invariably assume them to be telling the truth.


40 posted on 08/11/2016 8:04:47 AM PDT by Fantasywriter (Any attempt to do forensic work using Internet artifacts is fraught with pitfalls. JoeProbono)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson