Posted by Jim Henderson on: 02.28.2006 /
Mother Teresa’s signature passage in scripture was Matthew 25 where Jesus tells the story of the sheep and the goats. Some think he is referring to Christians and others think he is referring to all of us.
What do you think?
Comment # 38 from: Christian Leaders Not Materialistic
“Is it only Christians who visit people who are sick and in prison and invite strangers in and help feed and clothe people who need that help? I honestly do have a problem reconciling what this passage says to whatever I’ve ever been told it means by [Bible-believing]Christians.”
Comment by: Tom in Sacramento
1I think this isn’t the only passage in the Bible where Jesus (or His disciples) talks about the subject. So any conclusion drawn from this passage alone ought to be suspect until it is measured against the full commentary of the Bible.
(Happily dusting hands — Well there goes THAT straw man. ;-) )
Tom in Sacramento
Comment by: Bruce Lofland
2I don’t think compassion is limited to Christians, if that is the question. Since it is in the New Testament, then it is directed to Christians. Since it is in the book of Matthew, it is specifically for the early jewish Christians. Does this mean that it does not apply to everyone?
Is the real question “Will compassion for others alone get me into heaven even if I am not a Christian”? I think the Bible is simply saying that God values compassion toward our fellow humans.
Comment by: Ir
3I think this isn’t the only passage in the Bible where Jesus (or His disciples) talks about the subject. So any conclusion drawn from this passage alone ought to be suspect until it is measured against the full commentary of the Bible.
What conclusions can you draw from this passage that line up with the full commentary of Scripture?
If all conclusions from this passage have to line up with the full commentary of Scripture, is there any point in having this particular passage in the Bible?
Is the real question “Will compassion for others alone get me into heaven even if I am not a Christian”? I think the Bible is simply saying that God values compassion toward our fellow humans.
If that’s all this passage means, why didn’t Jesus simply say that? Why did Jesus tell a story which makes it sound as if compassion is the essential criterion for getting into heaven?
Comment by: Jim Henderson
4I agree with Ir
Comment by: r10b
5Who are “these brothers of Mine” in verse 40?
1 John 3:14 says that we have life because we love the brethern. The Good Samaritan parable is in response to the question, “Who is my neighbor? Are brothers different than neighbors?
Comment by: r10b
6I’ll play contrarian to Ir.
What is compassion? It is an act of personal volition. In other words, works of righteousness. The ever popular Eph. 2:8-9 is one of many statments made throughout scripture that contradict any attempt to say Mat. 25:31-46 is saying the we will gain admittance to heaven by feeding, clothing, and otherwise comforting a brother. However if feeding, clothing, etc proceeds from us as an expression of the fruit of the Spirit it is therefore a gift given by Godto the brethern through us and thus evidence of our salvation.
Comment by: Ir
7The ever popular Eph. 2:8-9 is one of many statements made throughout scripture that contradict any attempt to say Mat. 25:31-46 is saying that we will gain admittance to heaven by feeding, clothing, and otherwise comforting a brother.
So - when there appears to be a contradiction between what Jesus says and what someone else in the Bible says, go with what someone else says?
I wonder how Jesus feels about that.
If Matthew 25:31-46 is not saying people gain admittance to heaven by doing kind things for a brother, what is it saying?
Comment by: Ir
8Who are “these brothers of Mine” in verse 40?
1 John 3:14 says that we have life because we love the brethern. The Good Samaritan parable is in response to the question, “Who is my neighbor? Are brothers different than neighbors?
r10b, I’ll share with you what I’ve heard/read/been taught by Christians; in turn, can you share why you brought this specific point up? Do you see it as having significant bearing on the meaning of Matthew 25:31-46? Or are you just curious?
In the Good Samaritan story, Jesus uses the word ‘neighbor’ because he is discussing a passage in the Jewish Law (which is part of the Old Testament) which uses that word with Jewish religious leaders. When you’re discussing a text with people who believe in it, it’s best to begin with what that text says :).
The word ‘brother’, when it doesn’t literally mean ‘male sibling’, tends to means ‘person like yourself’ and or ‘person you have some connection with’ [in a patriarchal society]. The way it is used by the author of 1 John specifically means ‘fellow followers of Jesus’; it probably most often means that in the New Testament.
Comment by: Ir
9When Christians read the words of Jesus to a person/people in the Bible, Christians often conclude that Jesus was strongly challenging the thinking of the other person/people.
But it’s not possible for the words of Jesus to challenge Christians today if what Christians do with Jesus’ words is: immediately go see what someone else in the Bible said and decide that whatever Jesus said, what he actually meant was what someone else in the Bible said.
I’ve heard Bible-believing Christians strongly disparage the Jesus Seminar members because they ‘vote’ on which passages in the gospels they consider authentic. Yet, having pared down the gospels to what they consider authentic, they do take the words of Jesus seriously. Or so it seems to me from what I’ve read of theirs.
Which is worse?
1) to dismiss a significant proportion of the purported words and acts of Jesus and then take the rest seriously;
or
2) to assume, with regard to all the words and acts of Jesus, that whatever he said and did, what he actually meant was what someone else in the Bible said.
I see 2) as treating all the text dismissively and so on this basis, I give the Jesus Seminar members more credit for taking Jesus’ words seriously than Bible-believing Christians who engage in 2).
Comment by: Stephan
10This passage is one that I’m sure many Christians would rather not have in the Bible. It makes us uncomfortable. I have always been of the belief that who gets into heaven, and how, is not for us to determine. We are given certain instructions on how to treat others and how to live, and it is up to us to follow those instructions to the best of our ability.
This is why my “witnessing” is not about “getting your butt into heaven,” as Brian McLaren so eloquently put it. It is about getting right with God here and now. If God’s only goal was to get us to heaven, He could do that right away, with no waiting. I believe He must have some reason for us to be on earth, living for Him. And part of the point of this passage is to show us how to live for Him.
Comment by: Ir
11Thanks, Stephan.
I have always been of the belief that who gets into heaven, and how, is not for us to determine. We are given certain instructions on how to treat others and how to live, and it is up to us to follow those instructions to the best of our ability.
Are you ever afraid that the best of your ability isn’t good enough for God?
Does it ever bother you that heaven/hell is an infinite dichotomous divide, whereas human behavior appears to be pretty much on a continuum? I have trouble with that. Maybe no-one else perceives human behavior to be on a continuum like I do.
Comment by: KSG
12Is anyone ever good enough to get into heaven? Why even both trying?
By the way, if you question the authenticity of Jesus word’s (as the Jesus Seminar does) Why even bother believing in such remote and outlanding concepts like heaven, hell, god, the devil, etc. Seems to me you would be much better off if you just rejected all of it and adopted an atheistic point of view. If you only hold to small pieces of the Bible as true then makes more sense to not waste your time on such an archaic and mythical document.
Comment by: Bruce Lofland
13from Ir (3. above) “If that’s all this passage means, why didn’t Jesus simply say that? Why did Jesus tell a story which makes it sound as if compassion is the essential criterion for getting into heaven?”
The parable is told in a dramatic way to communicate the message in a way that the early jewish Christians would remember and think about. Being a parable, the point is communicate a concept and not laws, rules, or conditions.
from KSG (12. above) “Is anyone ever good enough to get into heaven? Why even both trying?” Being good does not get you into heaven. This is what makes Christianity different from other religions. Being good is what we do to honor God. This parable is just instruction on the kind of thing that honors God. It is put in terms of Judgement Day because that was a concept that the Jews understood.
Comment by: Ir
14KSG, I’ll apologize up front because I’m not done giving you a hard time yet…
Is anyone ever good enough to get into heaven?
I don’t know.
Why even bother trying?
Did I say I was trying? (Yes, I can sense that I am being trying, in the sense of annoying, but I don’t think you meant it in that way)
By the way, if you question the authenticity of Jesus word’s (as the Jesus Seminar does) Why even bother believing in such remote and outlanding concepts like heaven, hell, god, the devil, etc. Seems to me you would be much better off if you just rejected all of it and adopted an atheistic point of view. If you only hold to small pieces of the Bible as true then makes more sense to not waste your time on such an archaic and mythical document.
So now you’re encouraging me to be an atheist? Just because I like how the Jesus Seminar takes Jesus’ words seriously? Where in the Bible does it tell you to encourage me to be an atheist?
You seem exasperated with me and/or annoyed at me and/or offended at some things I have said. Are you? If so, what and why?
Your response is exactly why I don’t usually ask the questions I have. I expect you’ll give up posting back to me soon because it’s a waste of time. Maybe I’m too closed-minded or something or other.
Why are Christians so touchy? How does Jesus feel about that?
Comment by: KSG
15Ir,
If I was going to be touchy about your comments I would have quit posting a long time ago.
I am also not exasperated/annoyed/offended with you.
I just don’t understand your thinking.
If only some of what Jesus said can actually be attributed to him then who gets to pick what he actually said and what is a part of the mythology of Jesus. How do you reconcile concepts like Jesus resurection, virgin birth, or Revelation (the book), how do you account for miracles? What about N.T. concepts like salvation by faith through grace? Or other doctrine as recorded by Paul, John, Peter, James, etc.
What do you use as a frame of reference?
How does Jesus feel about that? ;)
Comment by: Ir
16If I was going to be touchy about your comments I would have quit posting a long time ago.
I am also not exasperated/annoyed/offended with you.
Ok, thanks for clarifying that.
I just don’t understand your thinking.
Yeah, I noticed. :)
But I think you’re trying to and I certainly give you credit for that.
If only some of what Jesus said can actually be attributed to him then who gets to pick what he actually said and what is a part of the mythology of Jesus.
I understand the issue - but I have the same question when Christians say “Jesus said this, but he meant that” or “The Bible says such-and-such; now I’ll explain what that means“. Each time a Christian says that, an assumption is being made. Who gets to pick the assumptions?
How do you reconcile concepts like Jesus resurection, virgin birth, or Revelation (the book), how do you account for miracles? What about N.T. concepts like salvation by faith through grace? Or other doctrine as recorded by Paul, John, Peter, James, etc.
Well…exactly!
What do you use as a frame of reference?
One thing I do is, I test what I can test of what people say. If what I can test is wrong then I have a hard time trusting the rest of what they say.
How does Jesus feel about that? ;)
Hey, no fair - that’s my question! :)
Comment by: Tom in Sacramento
17Ir, you asked an interesting (multipart) question up in 3&7. It concerns the relative value of red ink vs. black ink. ;-) (I’m assuming here that everyone knows that some version of the NT print Jesus’ words in red ink while everything else is in black.
Some people place a lot of value in red ink. I have no quibble with them. But personally, I do not. In my mind, the Bible, OT and NT, red ink and black; the whole thing is, to me, God’s written “special revelation” (technical term) to mankind. So, my first response is that a distinction between the red words and the black words is an artificial one.
Second, the reason for this lies, in part, with the literary history of the document. The “letters” in the NT are of earlier origin than the “gospels”. So there seems to me at least a reasonable chance that the memory of the gospel writers of what Jesus said and meant might not have been quite as clear as that of the letter writers who were closer in time to the facts.
But the fundamental issue is that *IF* the Bible is God’s word, *IF* He somehow ensured its content and transmission, then there is no warrant for making a distinction between the red words and the black words.
So, in response to your question in #7, I think Jesus is pleased that we would use the mind He created and gave us to verify what He’s told us.
A related idea in a quote I saw a while back: “Unthinking faith is a strange gift to offer to the creator of the human mind.”
Tom in Sacramento
Comment by: r10b
18Ir…
…immediately go see what someone else in the Bible said and decide that whatever Jesus said…
That “someone else” is God. All scripture is given by inspiration of God. The words in red do not carry additional theological weight if every word is from God. I’m not saying that one should look to refute Jesus’s words by looking elsewhere (the modus operandi of the Jesus Seminar is to appeal to the extra-canonical literature, even to Gnostic texts as their standard), but that one shoudl read and seek to understand the entire council of God as revealed in Scripture. Where there are “contradictions” I think a verse that stands in contrast to broad and repeated themes needs to be scrutinized with the aid of the Holy Spirit. Better to have an unclear understanding of a verse here and there then to turn a blind eye to a clear thematic principle.
—
NOTE: Tom from Sacramento posted while I composed this and coincidentally used the red word/black word idea. Great minds, huh? :)
—
…my “witnessing” is not about “getting your butt into heaven,”…It is about getting right with God here and now.
The two are not at cross-purposes. Getting right with God here and now is “salvation” and it gets one’s butt into heaven as a consequence. Living for God is “discipleship” and is the working out of our salvation. Discipleship is the cart. Salvation is the horse.
If God’s only goal was to get us to heaven, He could do that right away, with no waiting. I believe He must have some reason for us to be on earth, living for Him. And part of the point of this passage is to show us how to live for Him.
I agree completely.
Comment by: Tom in Sacramento
19A separate reply to another of Ir’s questions in #3 above: “What conclusions can you draw from this passage that line up with the full commentary of Scripture?”
First, a comment on how I read such passages of scripture. I do not think such parabolic teaching is intended to have a one-to-one relationship with every detail of the story. The sheep means this, the goat means that, the food means this, the drink means that. Rather, I think the passage is intended to make a single, memorable point.
I would say the single point of this story is that there will, someday, be a separation of the people, done by Jesus, on the basis of our relationship to Him. And that is consistent with the rest of scripture, I think.
That said, there are some interesting aspects of this word picture that Jesus drew. In no particular order….
— Jesus is the shepherd. This has significance if you understand middle eastern sheep herding practice, even today.
— He knows His sheep, and goats.
— Corollary, He knows which sheep and goats are not His.
— Righteousness is a function of relationship to Him.
— Righteousness produces good works as a natural outflow. (See James’ comments on faith and works.)
— Jesus is able to recognize our motives for good works.
— Jesus accounts as ‘for Him’ works done with good motives for others.
Some time it would be interesting to address the question of what happens to people who die without ever hearing about Christ. It’s a fun exercise…even though it is a topic that doesn’t apply to anyone here. ;-) But that’s a different post.
Tom in Sacramento
Comment by: Ir
20Tom, thanks for your comments. I understand that believing the Bible from beginning to end is God’s Word does imply that the red words (Jesus’ actual words) and the black words are equally important.
What concerns me is that how Christians interpret Matthew 25:31-46, as illustrated on this thread, makes the black words more important than the red.
Your point about the letters being written before the gospels is an interesting one and seems like it might be reasonable, except, it shouldn’t matter, if God caused each Bible author to write inerrant truth anyway.
I’ve observed that the long-running debates between Christians over this or that point of doctrine tend to boil down to: each side has ‘key verses’ which support their point; and they say that the other side’s key verses must be understood in light of their key verses.
But, I don’t understand where they get the authority to make some verses key and some others have to conform in meaning to what the key verses say. Especially since different Christians do it different ways and end up with differences in their theology as a result.
In thinking about the long-running debate between Calvinists and Arminians and how they handle verses, it occurred to me one day that maybe the simplest answer is that the Bible does actually contradict itself.
Comment by: r10b
21Ir…
in turn, can you share why you brought this specific point up?
I am curious what your take on its meaning in this context, and I’m still curious since you did not address it. Would “brother” mean a fellow Jew or a fellow believer or both or neither? I have seen a few different ideas about it’s meaning. I do not intent to rebut your reading; just looking for input. I respect your views (in the “admire” sense, not the “tolerate” sense).
Comment by: r10b
22it occurred to me one day that maybe the simplest answer is that the Bible does actually contradict itself
That would be the simplest answer! :)
It would also mean God speaks with a forked tongue and I’m not willing to accept that because then Christianty would start unraveling in short order.
Comment by: Ir
23r10b, my guess based on other Bible passages would be that “nations of the world” is a reference to Gentiles (non-Jews). (See, for example, If so, then I would think “brother” means “fellow Gentile”.
If “nations of the world” actually means “everyone”, then I would think “brother” means “fellow person”.
I was going to say - I don’t understand why “nations of the world” would be interpreted as “believers”. However, now it occurs to me that maybe the reason is that word “brother”.
Is that why you asked about that word?
Anyway, hopefully I have not given anyone the impression that I am confident of the meaning of this passage.
Comment by: Ir
24r10b wrote:
Ir: it occurred to me one day that maybe the simplest answer is that the Bible does actually contradict itself
That would be the simplest answer! :)
It would also mean God speaks with a forked tongue and I’m not willing to accept that because then Christianty would start unraveling in short order.
Technically speaking, it’s the doctrine of the entire Bible as God’s Word which is jeopardized by such thoughts.
Everything Christians believe about Jesus could still be true even if that doctrine came to be called into question.
Comment by: Ir
25Oops…the quote ends at “short order” and the rest is my comments.
Comment by: Ir
26Tom thanks for your comments on what this passage could mean (that lines up with the rest of the Bible).
Some time it would be interesting to address the question of what happens to people who die without ever hearing about Christ. It’s a fun exercise…even though it is a topic that doesn’t apply to anyone here. But that’s a different post.
That reminds me of another of my questions ;)
If someone has ‘heard’ of Christ from a nasty Christian who put them right off Christ, does that count as them having heard?
Comment by: KSG
27All this has made me pose to myself two questions, and I want to throw it out there for everyone, whether Atheist, Buddist, Xian, whateverist…
1.) What is your Statement of Faith?
example: The Nicene Creed
2.) What are you doing to live it out?
example: volunteering @ soup kitchen
Comment by: r10b
28Ir…
If someone has ‘heard’ of Christ from a nasty Christian who put them right off Christ, does that count as them having heard?
Who is the Ruler of Time and Circumstance? Is God sitting there in Heaven hoping for the best?
Comment by: Ir
29Is God sitting there in Heaven hoping for the best?
Actually r10b, it wasn’t a question about God’s power. It was more a question about what constitutes “having heard the gospel”.
Comment by: Ir
30KSG wrote: All this has made me pose to myself two questions, and I want to throw it out there for everyone, whether Atheist, Buddist, Xian, whateverist…
1.) What is your Statement of Faith?
example: The Nicene Creed
2.) What are you doing to live it out?
example: volunteering @ soup kitchen
1) I used to happily say the Nicene Creed with conviction; now I have no ’statement of faith’ per se. I have “priorities and values”; here are some of them: my family is one of my highest priorities; use my time wisely; stay connected with some people outside my family; safeguard my physical and mental health by living a “balanced” life; be kind to other people as much as I can without conflicting with my hierarchy of priorities and values.
2) Some examples: I’m being the best parent and spouse I’m able to be. I stopped going to church. I stopped going to Bible studies and joined a health club instead. I can take time to do things I enjoy, in moderation, because it’s good for my physical and mental health. I visit an old lady in a nursing home from time to time who is not related to me because circumstances put her in my life and it means a lot to her. At first I was doing it “because I believed God wanted me to”; I had to re-evaluate why when I became unsure that was true; I realized I could just quit. But — that would be unnecessarily unkind.
I’m aware that I don’t always act in accordance with my priorities and values; in some senses they are standards I aim for and don’t always achieve.
Ok, your turn now, KSG :). What is your statement of faith and what are some examples of what you are doing to live it out?
Comment by: Peter in Pennsylvania
31Ir writes
“Which is worse?
1) to dismiss a significant proportion of the purported words and acts of Jesus and then take the rest seriously;
or
2) to assume, with regard to all the words and acts of Jesus, that whatever he said and did, what he actually meant was what someone else in the Bible said.”
Ir, you bring up a FASCINATING point that nobody addressed back to you. It seems too often that people fall into one of those two camps. As a Christ-follower, I have the obvious aversion to option 1. But I have perhaps an even stronger aversion to option 2. At least you can say that the Jesus Seminar thought that SOME of Christ’s words were actually spoken by him, but when someone throws up strange interpretive…what I once heard called hermeneutical gymnastics… I think maybe they run the risk of setting themselves up as a god themselves.
I offer option 3. Instead of following Christ by “applying the Bible to your life” how about “applying your life to the Bible.” What I mean is…
Read it, figure out what it is saying in context (not so hard, actually), and find the obvious principles (they’re almost ALWAYS obvious) and just plain live ‘em.
Your comment and the objection to the way Christians view the Bible is right on the mark! I just wanted to comment on it.
Thanks.
Comment by: Ir
32Peter, thanks for listening :) And for your response.
Comment by: Tom in Sacramento
33Ir,
In response to your point in #20, this is where, for myself, I invoke the Isaiah 55:8-9 Principle. It seems to me that a finite mind encountering an infinite God is bound to have some “gaps” in understanding simply because, notwithstanding my best efforts, in the final analysis I see as a man, not as God.
But what this means, for me, is that I need to hang on to revealed truth even when I don’t understand how different bits work together. You cited the classic example; Calvin v. Arminius. My take, sort of like Fiddler on the Roof: “He’s right. He’s right. They’re both right.”
You see, systematic theologians produce these neat, tidy packages. They take all of the Bible’s truth and stuff it into a box. They put the lid on, and then they neatly trim off everything that’s hanging out. The problem, of course, is that all that stuff they trimmed off…that is just as much absolute truth as the stuff in the box. The only reason they trimmed it off is that they couldn’t reconcile infinite truth with their finite mind.
BTW, I appreciate your transparency in talking about your journey away from the church. I have an enormous temptation to do the same thing, at times. If *I* was perfect, and then if I could find a perfect *church*, I’m sure I could be happy. ;-) Ah, well. Such is life.
Tom in Sacramento
Comment by: Tom in Sacramento
34Ir,
You asked another interesting question in #26, “If someone has ‘heard’ of Christ from a nasty Christian who put them right off Christ, does that count as them having heard?”
Beats me. If *I* was God, it wouldn’t. I would want people to have a shot at a reasonably fair and congenial presentation of the truth in a relational and compassionate manner. After all, if *I* was God, and someone was telling other people about me, I would want them telling the story in a manner consistent with my character and my love for people.
But that’s just me. I guess the ultimate answer depends on whether you think God is as good as I am or not. ;-)
On the other hand, if *I* was God, I’m not sure I’d leave my story in the hands of *people*! When I think of all the times I’ve screwed things up…. Maybe that is why Jesus’ coming was necessary.
Tom in Sacramento
Comment by: KSG
35And maybe that’s why Jesus 2nd coming will be necessary.
Comment by: KSG
36In response to Ir’s request at the bottom of #30…
My statement of faith includes the basis tenants of the Xian faith:
I believe in one God expressed in the Father, Son, & Holy Spirit.
I believe in salvation by grace through faith in the resurrected person of Jesus.
I believe the Holy Spirit is active in the earth today and can be experienced through a multitude of expressions including healing, prophecy, speaking in tongues, signs, wonders & miracles, etc., but primarily through love.
I believe the Bible to be divinely inspired by God and although accurately recorded does contain inconsistencies that must be weighed against the entire content and context of the Bible.
I believe in the organic, living, breathing body of Christ (The Church) as the primary method that God uses to express himself to all humanity, and as such exists to serve all humanity.
I believe in the unity of believers while respecting diversity in non-essential areas.
I live out my beliefs by attempting to maintain the following priorities:
1.) a relationship with God through worship
2.) my love affair with an amazing woman
3.) loving, training & playing with our kids
4.)intentionally honoring people by putting them before stuff (church, work, hobbies, you-name-it). Whether that means going for lunch with your dad even though you need to use that time for something else, or using your snowblower to blow out the back alley for all your neighbors, or giving money to support local inner city initiatives, it doesn’t matter, people come 1st.
5.) giving time and money to a local church body.
6.) doing my job to the best of my ability.
I would also add that I fail at this living-out-my-faith thing consistently.
Comment by: Ir
37Thanks, KSG.
2), 3), 4) and 6) are priorities of mine also.
1) and 5) used to be.
My statement of faith used to be similar to yours except for some nuances about what the Holy Spirit is up to these days :)
Comment by: skikid
38KSG wrote “I believe in the organic, living, breathing body of Christ (The Church) as the primary method that God uses to express himself to all humanity, and as such exists to serve all humanity”
What does the word organic mean here?
Comment by: Siamang
39Grown without the use of artificial pesticides.
(Sorry, couldn’t resist.)
Comment by: skikid
40Thats were I was going (on first thought) or along the lines on non-GMO. However I am assuming that that’s not KSG’s intention by that word…
Comment by: KSG
41Saimang, why apologize? You’re right.
Skikid,
I use the word “organic” because it implies having been grown in a healthy manner. Anything grown organically is grown without pesticides/herbicides/insecticides and without chemical fertilizers.
If you eat some fruit or veggies that have been grown organically (versus non-organic) you can notice the difference - better taste, more flavourful and usually very fillings (and also usually a little smaller).
As it applies in this situation, I use organic to describe a church that doesn’t have the external man-made trappings of religion, but is the natural outgrowth of a dynamic relationship with Jesus. It is church as comfortable in the marketplace as a building. It is sanctuary. 1st century Jesus followers without the additions and rules of man.
Comment by: Ir
42Hey KSG, you said to remind you of my questions after the weekend, re: the people who would ‘crucify’ you if they knew you were participating here. I was asking you why they would?
Comment by: Love is the most excellent way · My Story: The Questions Which Didn’t Have The Right Answer
43 12/10/06 2:02 AM | Comment Link |[...] I had the opportunity to discuss an example of this in the Off The Map Ebay Atheist blog - for example: Sheep and Goats: Who’s in and who’s out? [...]