The Denominations, Demonizations, and the Damnations
May 8, 2015 10:52:19 #
aka -- "Why do Christians have different Bibles?"
Many people might say "Oh, my church doesn't have any special doctrine or dogma --
WE JUST BELIEVE IN THE BIBLE!! "
OK
Uh - what Bible?
Protestants have 66 'books' in our Bible -- 39 in the OLD Testament -- 27 in the NEW TESTAMENT.
Roman Catholics have a handful MORE -- Orthodox with a capital "O" have all the Catholics do PLUS Psalm 151 and Prayer of Manasseh.
At one time -- certain Coptic churches and/or Ethiopian Orthodox churches -- included the Book of Enoch in "the Abyssinian Canon".
Orthodox, Protestants, Catholics and Copts are all valid forms of Christianity.
Amazingly - the same 27 books are agreed upon by everybody's "New Testament".
The first known listing of these 27 books as THE New Testament - meaning these 27 and no others - as far as I can tell, was in a letter from Athanasius in three-hunnerd-sumpn.
Some individual books were not accepted by churches in certain parts of the world until centuries later; certain favorite writings like Shepherd of Hermas and The Didache were thought to be INCLUDED in the New Testament by certain churches at certain time -- but now we amazingly have an agreed-upon New Testament by Christians of all demonizations -- or rather -- denominations.
The disagreements among today's valid branches of Christendom all lie in "the Old Testament" - at one point Martin Luther designated only the "39 books" in the Masoretic texts as proper for the OLD TESTAMENT
(Note that these "39 books" have no correlation to the "24 books" of the Hebrew Scriptures).
And so Catholic brethren sometimes allege
"well, Martin Luther THREW SOME BOOKS OUT OF THE BIBLE!"
AND HE SUFFERS DEMONIZATIONS FOR IT -- DESERVEDLY OR NOT --
AS HE SUFFERS DEMONIZATIONS FOR CERTAIN ANTI-SEMITIC COMMENTS LATER IN LIFE
which are deemed unfortunate and "we wish he hadn't said them"
but history cannot be changed.
Actually, what Luther did - in a way - was honoring a decision of the Jewish people themselves at Council of Jamnia
which declared Masoretic texts -- those books written in Hebrew -- superior to other Hebrew writings which were only found in the Septuagint (Hebrew writings translated into Koine Greek)
Understand that ALL OF THIS IS AN OVER-SIMPLIFICATION -- it is merely a place to start.
Many people might say "Oh, my church doesn't have any special doctrine or dogma --
WE JUST BELIEVE IN THE BIBLE!! "
OK
Uh - what Bible?
Protestants have 66 'books' in our Bible -- 39 in the OLD Testament -- 27 in the NEW TESTAMENT.
Roman Catholics have a handful MORE -- Orthodox with a capital "O" have all the Catholics do PLUS Psalm 151 and Prayer of Manasseh.
At one time -- certain Coptic churches and/or Ethiopian Orthodox churches -- included the Book of Enoch in "the Abyssinian Canon".
Orthodox, Protestants, Catholics and Copts are all valid forms of Christianity.
Amazingly - the same 27 books are agreed upon by everybody's "New Testament".
The first known listing of these 27 books as THE New Testament - meaning these 27 and no others - as far as I can tell, was in a letter from Athanasius in three-hunnerd-sumpn.
Some individual books were not accepted by churches in certain parts of the world until centuries later; certain favorite writings like Shepherd of Hermas and The Didache were thought to be INCLUDED in the New Testament by certain churches at certain time -- but now we amazingly have an agreed-upon New Testament by Christians of all demonizations -- or rather -- denominations.
The disagreements among today's valid branches of Christendom all lie in "the Old Testament" - at one point Martin Luther designated only the "39 books" in the Masoretic texts as proper for the OLD TESTAMENT
(Note that these "39 books" have no correlation to the "24 books" of the Hebrew Scriptures).
And so Catholic brethren sometimes allege
"well, Martin Luther THREW SOME BOOKS OUT OF THE BIBLE!"
AND HE SUFFERS DEMONIZATIONS FOR IT -- DESERVEDLY OR NOT --
AS HE SUFFERS DEMONIZATIONS FOR CERTAIN ANTI-SEMITIC COMMENTS LATER IN LIFE
which are deemed unfortunate and "we wish he hadn't said them"
but history cannot be changed.
Actually, what Luther did - in a way - was honoring a decision of the Jewish people themselves at Council of Jamnia
which declared Masoretic texts -- those books written in Hebrew -- superior to other Hebrew writings which were only found in the Septuagint (Hebrew writings translated into Koine Greek)
Understand that ALL OF THIS IS AN OVER-SIMPLIFICATION -- it is merely a place to start.
May 8, 2015 11:06:43 #
Of course there have always been TONS OF COMMENTARIES from earliest times by early Church Fathers, but Christians don't have SET BOOKS of anything like the quasi-commentaries of TALMUD -- whatever exactly TALMUD is -- there is no exact Christian equivalent that I know of.
There has been MYSTIC THOUGHT since earliest times in the Church - but perhaps not a codified "school of thought" akin to Kaballah or books like ZOHAR.
St John of the Cross, Meister Eckhart, etc have been CHRISTIAN MYSTICS -- and there has been everything from Edgar Cayce to Sylvia Browne in recent times which crosses lines from Christianity to New Age it seems.
I have obtained -- and may never finish reading -- both volumes of R H Charles' APOCRYPHA AND PSEUDIPIGRAPHA OF THE OLD AND NEW TESTAMENTS. I had earlier his translation of BOOK OF ENOCH - I used to have the Laurence translation as well - dunno what happened to it.
And of course many Gnostic writings outside of even these non-canonical works that Charles provides -- were floating around in early Christendom - Gnostic Gospels of Thomas and Mary Magdalene - etc -
anything from Mary Magdalene marrying Jesus and getting pregnant before He died - to variations of Merovingian Gnosticism that Jesus did not die from the Cross but revived and went to France with Mary Magdalene and had several kids
and on and on
and many things I can neither confirm nor deny.
There has been MYSTIC THOUGHT since earliest times in the Church - but perhaps not a codified "school of thought" akin to Kaballah or books like ZOHAR.
St John of the Cross, Meister Eckhart, etc have been CHRISTIAN MYSTICS -- and there has been everything from Edgar Cayce to Sylvia Browne in recent times which crosses lines from Christianity to New Age it seems.
I have obtained -- and may never finish reading -- both volumes of R H Charles' APOCRYPHA AND PSEUDIPIGRAPHA OF THE OLD AND NEW TESTAMENTS. I had earlier his translation of BOOK OF ENOCH - I used to have the Laurence translation as well - dunno what happened to it.
And of course many Gnostic writings outside of even these non-canonical works that Charles provides -- were floating around in early Christendom - Gnostic Gospels of Thomas and Mary Magdalene - etc -
anything from Mary Magdalene marrying Jesus and getting pregnant before He died - to variations of Merovingian Gnosticism that Jesus did not die from the Cross but revived and went to France with Mary Magdalene and had several kids
and on and on
and many things I can neither confirm nor deny.
May 8, 2015 11:22:03 #
So really there are just some disputes about WHICH HEBREW SCRIPTURES to include in the Old Testament - even getting as hair-splitting as "extra parts to Daniel" or "extra parts to Esther" - and much relates to whether or not certain Hebrew writings EXISTED ONLY IN KOINE GREEK or were there in Hebrew all along.
As far as original composition of New Testament writings -- most Biblical scholars are of the opinion that the originals were in Koine Greek -- with the possible exceptions of Matthew and Mark -- which MAY have had Aramaic originals.
Opposing this majority trend is LAMSA - who has produced his own Bible - Lamsa asserts that ALL OF THE NEW TESTAMENT was originally written in Aramaic -- he holds that the PESHITTO Syrian manuscripts in Aramaic are "the real deal"
and would even go so far as have us believe that Luke - a Gentile physician (who wrote the bulk of the New Testament) wrote originally in Aramaic.
Now come on.
Pinch the pages of Gospel of Luke and Acts of the Apostles together - look at that bulk of pages together compared to the rest of the New Testament - and you will see what I mean about Luke being the most prolific New Testament writer.
But even Lamsa has his one strong point - the contention that the passage about CAMEL through eye of a NEEDLE really originally meant ROPE Through the eye of a needle -- he substantiates this, and as many scholars do believe in an Aramaic original to Matthew and Mark --
I see this one point of Lamsa's; but definitely balk at the idea that the entire New Testament was written first in Aramaic and later merely TRANSLATED into Greek.
That's silly.
Paul wrote letters to people who DIDN'T EVEN KNOW Aramaic - didn't know Hebrew either.
And had Phoebe the Deaconess hand-deliver his Letter to the Romans (even while elsewhere proclaiming that wimmin should just shut-up) - he contradicted that himself - as Apollos - already "mighty in the Scriptures" was FURTHER INSTRUCTED MORE PERFECTLY
by Aquilla AND PRISCILLA (Paul's fellow tent-makers)
so we all can learn from each other
As far as original composition of New Testament writings -- most Biblical scholars are of the opinion that the originals were in Koine Greek -- with the possible exceptions of Matthew and Mark -- which MAY have had Aramaic originals.
Opposing this majority trend is LAMSA - who has produced his own Bible - Lamsa asserts that ALL OF THE NEW TESTAMENT was originally written in Aramaic -- he holds that the PESHITTO Syrian manuscripts in Aramaic are "the real deal"
and would even go so far as have us believe that Luke - a Gentile physician (who wrote the bulk of the New Testament) wrote originally in Aramaic.
Now come on.
Pinch the pages of Gospel of Luke and Acts of the Apostles together - look at that bulk of pages together compared to the rest of the New Testament - and you will see what I mean about Luke being the most prolific New Testament writer.
But even Lamsa has his one strong point - the contention that the passage about CAMEL through eye of a NEEDLE really originally meant ROPE Through the eye of a needle -- he substantiates this, and as many scholars do believe in an Aramaic original to Matthew and Mark --
I see this one point of Lamsa's; but definitely balk at the idea that the entire New Testament was written first in Aramaic and later merely TRANSLATED into Greek.
That's silly.
Paul wrote letters to people who DIDN'T EVEN KNOW Aramaic - didn't know Hebrew either.
And had Phoebe the Deaconess hand-deliver his Letter to the Romans (even while elsewhere proclaiming that wimmin should just shut-up) - he contradicted that himself - as Apollos - already "mighty in the Scriptures" was FURTHER INSTRUCTED MORE PERFECTLY
by Aquilla AND PRISCILLA (Paul's fellow tent-makers)
so we all can learn from each other
May 8, 2015 12:12:32 #
Though with nothing the equivalent of either TALMUD that I know of - there are "things extra to the Bible" that are revered by certain Christians.
I will try to discuss whatever denominations I have been a part of - which encompass Methodist - Baptist - Lutheran - Episcopalian - and UNITY.
The BOOK OF COMMON PRAYER in the Episcopal Church is cool - probably the best doctrine "on paper" I have ever seen (in reality - the "gay" issue tore apart Episcopalians a while back, and it wasn't pretty.)
BOOK OF COMMON PRAYER has good stuff - good catechism - and IT'S OWN TRANSLATION of all the Psalms. Not King James - not Revised Standard - not NIV -- but a set of the Psalms in a translation unique to BOOK OF COMMON PRAYER.
The lectionary of READINGS does in fact occasionally include readings from "the Apocrypha" - unique among a Protestant Demonization to include "those Catholic Books" occasionally -- and in fact sometimes Episcopal has been called "Catholic Lite"
There are two CREEDS which are the "Top Dogs" of Christian 'summaries of the Faith' -- the Nicene Creed and the Apostles' Creed.
An earlier version of the BOOK OF COMMON PRAYER used to include THE ATHANASIAN CREED. (It was NOT written by Athanasius, and is more of a CURSE than a Creed -- it is one of the DAMNATIONS - saying cursed are ye if you DON'T believe this or that, etc. It has been relegated to the "historical documents" section of the Prayer Book -- never did deserve to be up there with the TWO BIGGIES - Nicene and Apostles Creeds (IMO)
Nicene Creed is really the Top Dog of the CReeds
I will try to discuss whatever denominations I have been a part of - which encompass Methodist - Baptist - Lutheran - Episcopalian - and UNITY.
The BOOK OF COMMON PRAYER in the Episcopal Church is cool - probably the best doctrine "on paper" I have ever seen (in reality - the "gay" issue tore apart Episcopalians a while back, and it wasn't pretty.)
BOOK OF COMMON PRAYER has good stuff - good catechism - and IT'S OWN TRANSLATION of all the Psalms. Not King James - not Revised Standard - not NIV -- but a set of the Psalms in a translation unique to BOOK OF COMMON PRAYER.
The lectionary of READINGS does in fact occasionally include readings from "the Apocrypha" - unique among a Protestant Demonization to include "those Catholic Books" occasionally -- and in fact sometimes Episcopal has been called "Catholic Lite"
There are two CREEDS which are the "Top Dogs" of Christian 'summaries of the Faith' -- the Nicene Creed and the Apostles' Creed.
An earlier version of the BOOK OF COMMON PRAYER used to include THE ATHANASIAN CREED. (It was NOT written by Athanasius, and is more of a CURSE than a Creed -- it is one of the DAMNATIONS - saying cursed are ye if you DON'T believe this or that, etc. It has been relegated to the "historical documents" section of the Prayer Book -- never did deserve to be up there with the TWO BIGGIES - Nicene and Apostles Creeds (IMO)
Nicene Creed is really the Top Dog of the CReeds
May 8, 2015 12:22:36 #
There are two major variants of the Nicene Creed -- with or without the "filioque" clause.
It is important to Catholics and Orthodox whether or not the creed says that The Holy Spirit
"proceeds from the Father"
or
"proceeds from the Father AND THE SON"
Many damnations and demonizations over the "and the Son (filioque)" clause, BETWEEN Roman Catholic AND Greek Orthodox.
It calls to mind Swift's book "GULLIVER'S TRAVELS" - CERTAIN PEOPLE WHERE Gulliver TRAVELLED TO WERE WARRING ABOUT which end of a hard-boiled egg ONE SHOULD OPEN FIRST! Big end or little end of the egg.
I feel Protestants just SAY WHATEVER IS PRINTED IN THE BULLETIN and could care less about 'filioque'.
It is important to Catholics and Orthodox whether or not the creed says that The Holy Spirit
"proceeds from the Father"
or
"proceeds from the Father AND THE SON"
Many damnations and demonizations over the "and the Son (filioque)" clause, BETWEEN Roman Catholic AND Greek Orthodox.
It calls to mind Swift's book "GULLIVER'S TRAVELS" - CERTAIN PEOPLE WHERE Gulliver TRAVELLED TO WERE WARRING ABOUT which end of a hard-boiled egg ONE SHOULD OPEN FIRST! Big end or little end of the egg.
I feel Protestants just SAY WHATEVER IS PRINTED IN THE BULLETIN and could care less about 'filioque'.
May 8, 2015 12:42:32 #
These "top-of-the-line Creeds" are for TRINITARIAN Christians.
There are NON-Trinitarian Christians of various types, comprising a significant minority -- Unitarians, Oneness Pentecostals, and certain Messianic Christians who do not subscribe to a "TRINITY".
UNITY - a demonization I went to for a while -- is NOT Unitarian, nor are they "Unitarian Universalists"
"We are NOT THAT - we are UNITY !" they say - and they are hard to pin down on any doctrine whatsoever.
John Milton -- author of PARADISE LOST and PARADISE REGAINED -- was a non-Trinitarian, but not formally Unitarian.
William Barclay - a famous commentator -- was a Universalist (everybody eventually comes back to God).
There are various views of "hell" among Christians; varying as to its 'literalness' and its 'longevity'
The three main variants I have humorously dubbed as
LAKERS -- CLIPPERS -- and DODGERS...
punning on professional sports teams in Los Angeles
to describe various views of "hell"
There are NON-Trinitarian Christians of various types, comprising a significant minority -- Unitarians, Oneness Pentecostals, and certain Messianic Christians who do not subscribe to a "TRINITY".
UNITY - a demonization I went to for a while -- is NOT Unitarian, nor are they "Unitarian Universalists"
"We are NOT THAT - we are UNITY !" they say - and they are hard to pin down on any doctrine whatsoever.
John Milton -- author of PARADISE LOST and PARADISE REGAINED -- was a non-Trinitarian, but not formally Unitarian.
William Barclay - a famous commentator -- was a Universalist (everybody eventually comes back to God).
There are various views of "hell" among Christians; varying as to its 'literalness' and its 'longevity'
The three main variants I have humorously dubbed as
LAKERS -- CLIPPERS -- and DODGERS...
punning on professional sports teams in Los Angeles
to describe various views of "hell"
May 8, 2015 19:48:20 #
OK. The standard, straight-down-the-pipe majority view of HELL (Gr 'hades' - unseen) is the 'Eternal Torment' view.
(Gehenna is also a New Testament word translated hell, not as common as "hades")
In a hilarious thread on another board -- there was a search for NAMES for those who held various views of HELL; the Eternal Torment position was labeled by one poster as "LAKERS" -- due to a verse in Revelation where Hades gave up the dead in it at a point in time and they were thrown in a LAKE of Fire to be tormented "forever and ever".
I rolled laughing when I saw the term LAKERS used for the 'eternal torment' crowd - and then proposed the term "CLIPPERS" for the "annihilationist" crowd -- those who believe that "if yer bad - you just DIE when you DIE" like some kid said at the beginning of a Grand Funk Song long ago.
The reference for CLIPPERS comes from Ecclesiastes (Qoheleth) about the SILVER CORD being severed - when your soul is severed from your earthly body - when that silver cord is cut, severed, or CLIPPED -- you are TOAST.
The UNIVERSALISTS -- those who believe EVERYBODY eventually "makes it to heaven" -- albeit some hassles along the way --
I called DODGERS
because those believers want to DODGE the whole issue of God demanding that some people "go to hell" or get "winked out of existence altogether".
I tried to put forth the proposition that there might be OTHER possibilities besides these THREE CHOICES -- but I got shouted down and told to shut up -- that there were indeed only 3 options -- Eternal Torment, Annihilation, or Universalism.
And so I use the two basketball teams and the one baseball team from LA to represent these choices -- LAKERS, CLIPPERS, and DODGERS
(Gehenna is also a New Testament word translated hell, not as common as "hades")
In a hilarious thread on another board -- there was a search for NAMES for those who held various views of HELL; the Eternal Torment position was labeled by one poster as "LAKERS" -- due to a verse in Revelation where Hades gave up the dead in it at a point in time and they were thrown in a LAKE of Fire to be tormented "forever and ever".
I rolled laughing when I saw the term LAKERS used for the 'eternal torment' crowd - and then proposed the term "CLIPPERS" for the "annihilationist" crowd -- those who believe that "if yer bad - you just DIE when you DIE" like some kid said at the beginning of a Grand Funk Song long ago.
The reference for CLIPPERS comes from Ecclesiastes (Qoheleth) about the SILVER CORD being severed - when your soul is severed from your earthly body - when that silver cord is cut, severed, or CLIPPED -- you are TOAST.
The UNIVERSALISTS -- those who believe EVERYBODY eventually "makes it to heaven" -- albeit some hassles along the way --
I called DODGERS
because those believers want to DODGE the whole issue of God demanding that some people "go to hell" or get "winked out of existence altogether".
I tried to put forth the proposition that there might be OTHER possibilities besides these THREE CHOICES -- but I got shouted down and told to shut up -- that there were indeed only 3 options -- Eternal Torment, Annihilation, or Universalism.
And so I use the two basketball teams and the one baseball team from LA to represent these choices -- LAKERS, CLIPPERS, and DODGERS
May 8, 2015 20:30:38 #
May 9, 2015 02:21:55 #
WhatIt'sWorth wrote:
aka -- "Why do Christians have different Bibl... (show quote)
I venture to say that there are few Christians that venture to get this deep into background. Such, er, "diversions" would be seen as the whispers of Satan. Best no to go there. A book showing contradictions in the inerrant word? Condemn, do not read, seems righteous and right.
The estimates of Christian sects varying greatly, from a few hundred up to almost ten thousand, but these are just labels and not a demonstration of the heart of the individuals in this diversity. I feel that heart is all that matters to God, no matter what name you put on it. Beliefs are not what gives eternal life, as Jesus pointed out; love is what gives eternal life, what we do for the least of these is how we get our name in the book of life. Sprinkle or immerse for baptism? Ridiculous to God, at least as far as I can see.
May 9, 2015 09:58:40 #
Char - the "time" to learn this was
FROM LATE FIFTIES TIL NOW
still goin on...
Fiat - yes - my 'diversions' have definitely been seen as "whispers of Satan" on some straight Christian boards
denominations/demonizations "from a few hundred up to almost ten thousand"
yeah well
on Air Force bases it was simplified
One building - THE CHAPEL.
One or two PROTESTANT services -- one or two Catholic services -- all back to back in the same place
I usually went to the Protestant service -- but in the final analysis -- it got down to
WHO HAD THE BEST CHOIR
at Homestead Florida - the Catholics did have the best choir,
and I was accepted in the choir - but jumped on when I TOOK COMMUNION and one of the basses pointed out "you can't DO THAT - yer not Catholic!"
Oh. sorry.
At Del Rio Texas - there was an "ecumenical coalition" which searched the pews in between the Protestant and Catholic service and removed all of the CHICK TRACTS placed by - er - more aggressive Protestants that were aimed at the evil Catholics
CHICK TRACTS are not the most tactful presentations of the Christian faith - to put it mildly
Chaplain Father Cordoza had an entire DRAWER of Chick Tracts in his office that he showed me one time
he had a very grave look on his face
I clenched my jaws and tried not to smile myself - Father Cordoza was a Captain and I a first lieutenant at the time
...
"Sprinkle or immerse for baptism?"
Oh - I could tell some stories on that -- as the ONE Methodist in a Greek class of NINETY Baptists at Baylor University
In the Student Union cafeteria once, I felt myself sprayed with water -- turned around to see one of the Baptist ringleaders and his cohorts behind me - laughing - and coffee-time with the Satanic Methodist before and after Greek class became a regular thing after that
FROM LATE FIFTIES TIL NOW
still goin on...
Fiat - yes - my 'diversions' have definitely been seen as "whispers of Satan" on some straight Christian boards
denominations/demonizations "from a few hundred up to almost ten thousand"
yeah well
on Air Force bases it was simplified
One building - THE CHAPEL.
One or two PROTESTANT services -- one or two Catholic services -- all back to back in the same place
I usually went to the Protestant service -- but in the final analysis -- it got down to
WHO HAD THE BEST CHOIR
at Homestead Florida - the Catholics did have the best choir,
and I was accepted in the choir - but jumped on when I TOOK COMMUNION and one of the basses pointed out "you can't DO THAT - yer not Catholic!"
Oh. sorry.
At Del Rio Texas - there was an "ecumenical coalition" which searched the pews in between the Protestant and Catholic service and removed all of the CHICK TRACTS placed by - er - more aggressive Protestants that were aimed at the evil Catholics
CHICK TRACTS are not the most tactful presentations of the Christian faith - to put it mildly
Chaplain Father Cordoza had an entire DRAWER of Chick Tracts in his office that he showed me one time
he had a very grave look on his face
I clenched my jaws and tried not to smile myself - Father Cordoza was a Captain and I a first lieutenant at the time
...
"Sprinkle or immerse for baptism?"
Oh - I could tell some stories on that -- as the ONE Methodist in a Greek class of NINETY Baptists at Baylor University
In the Student Union cafeteria once, I felt myself sprayed with water -- turned around to see one of the Baptist ringleaders and his cohorts behind me - laughing - and coffee-time with the Satanic Methodist before and after Greek class became a regular thing after that
May 9, 2015 10:57:13 #
WhatIt'sWorth wrote:
Char - the "time" to learn this was br ... (show quote)
Hmmm lots of miles, I am sure it gave you much insight.
I sometimes see people blindfolded by whatever they are endoctrnated with. Often times see them as fixed.
But found that when staying in one direction one does learn far more.
I was curious and dabbled. I still do
But returned to an almost traditional Synagogue
I love that my Synagogue has both Sephardim and Ashkenazim.
It encompasses all and gives space to all.
And we have great music too. :)
NOTHING my parents would have belonged to they were Conservative orthodox.
But I know they are happy that I did return in my own way.
May 9, 2015 23:53:52 #
WhatIt'sWorth wrote:
Char - the "time" to learn this was br ... (show quote)
The best service in the service was the one with the best donuts and coffee...and servers, so I have been told.
May 9, 2015 23:56:47 #
Char4Dew wrote:
Hmmm lots of miles, I am sure it gave you much ins... (show quote)
Curious style of writing; I like it.
May 10, 2015 00:08:57 #
May 10, 2015 00:14:09 #
fiatlux wrote:
I venture to say that there are few Christians tha... (show quote)
Beutifully said fiatlux - Love does feed the spirit and nurish the soul and it does not matter how you get there stay open to corrections and never close your heart that is what I think you are saying too. :)
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.