tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post8055536714755917238..comments2023-10-05T08:25:13.232-04:00Comments on Biblical Evidence for Catholicism: Martin Luther's Views on St. Augustine and Other Church Fathers: Contradictions, Falsehoods, and Dishonesty Dave Armstronghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07771661758539438173noreply@blogger.comBlogger54125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-48616740550030767162009-08-13T18:25:29.580-04:002009-08-13T18:25:29.580-04:00Thanks for explaining the "fairies" rumo...Thanks for explaining the "fairies" rumors. Having belonged to a, um, out-of-the-mainstream sect in my earlier life, I know that there can be a lot of confusion and miscommunication between the sect and the "outsiders" (for want of a better term). Sometimes things get blown out of proportion, as you say -- or there might be problems with the sect and its teachings, just not quite the problems the "outsiders" might think.<br /><br /><i>Basically, I'd be a subordinationist, like everyone knows that Origen and Eusebius were, though they don't seem to realize that Tertullian, Justin, and others clearly were. It's bizarre that people don't realize because it's stated plainly.</i><br /><br />I think anyone who is familiar with the writings of the Fathers and the history of the development of orthodox Christian theology is quite aware that the views of Tertullian and St. Justin were subordinationist, and in fact paved the way for the Arian heresy. Not everything the Fathers said or believed was correct, and in fact, though St. Justin and St. Hippolytus didn't intend to pronounce such erroneou ideas, their views amounted to a form of ditheism (and the Pope's refusal to accept St. Hippolytus' theology led St. Hippolytus' into schism as the first antipope).<br /><br /><i>The Nicene Creed is subordinationist, too, though it doesn't fully come out and say it. Have you ever noticed that it says the one God is the Father, not the one God is the Father, Son, and Spirit?</i><br /><br />No, the Nicene Creed is certainly no subordinationist. That's why the semi-Arians worked so hard to overturn Nicaea, to come up with a compromise formula that left room for subordinationism.<br /><br /><i>However, it's really "God from God" that expresses the subordinationist view best in the creed. It'd be obvious, in my opinion, to anyone familiar with the Ante-Nicene writings--as in they've read them over and over.</i><br /><br />That formula, which came into the Nicene Creed from that which St. Gregory Thaumaturgus received in vision from St. John and Our Lady, would be open to an erroneous subordinationist reading were it not for the insertion of the homoousion.<br /><br /><i>The Athanasian Creed espouses the view held by the modern Roman Catholic Church, but it contradicts the Nicene Creed. It's the Orthodox Churches that still hold to a view that is accurately Nicene.</i><br /><br />No, I'm sorry, but the so-called Athanasian Creed in no way contradicts the Nicene Creed. Where or from whom have you studied Trinitarian theology, Shammah?Confiteborhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17951083063448447552noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-86346299935799948312009-08-13T17:15:47.304-04:002009-08-13T17:15:47.304-04:00Hi again.
I quit posting because all I could see ...Hi again.<br /><br />I quit posting because all I could see us doing was going round and round even more than we have. So I just left it with y'all having the last word.<br /><br />However, I have to comment on Jordanes description of Rose Creek Village, which far more reasonable than I could have ever expected.<br /><br />>>RCV looks to have a strong strain of restorationism as well as anti-Catholicism<<<br /><br />Restorationism would be accurate from y'all's viewpoint, though we would never use the word.<br /><br />We don't talk about Catholicism much. It would be much more fair to call me personally anti-Catholic, though I think I've been very polite with y'all.<br /><br />>>A few ex-members have claimed that back in the 1990s RCV was encouraging belief in fairies and elves.<<<br /><br />Blame that one me. I wrote a "fairy story" around 1997 that compared Christians to fairies. It was a neat comparison. Fairies live in two dimensions and have powers normal mortals don't. It was just a comparison.<br /><br />People sure blew that out of proportion.<br /><br />Finally, on the Trinity, it's me personally who talks about the Nicene Creed being misinterpreted, not Rose Creek Village. RCV has heard my teaching on it, and they're okay with it, but it's too complicated to talk about much.<br /><br />Basically, I'd be a subordinationist, like everyone knows that Origen and Eusebius were, though they don't seem to realize that Tertullian, Justin, and others clearly were. It's bizarre that people don't realize because it's stated plainly.<br /><br />The Nicene Creed is subordinationist, too, though it doesn't fully come out and say it. Have you ever noticed that it says the one God is the Father, not the one God is the Father, Son, and Spirit?<br /><br />However, it's really "God from God" that expresses the subordinationist view best in the creed. It'd be obvious, in my opinion, to anyone familiar with the Ante-Nicene writings--as in they've read them over and over.<br /><br />I have a set of pages on that on my web site at http://www.christian-history.org/definition-of-the-trinity.html.<br /><br />The Athanasian Creed espouses the view held by the modern Roman Catholic Church, but it contradicts the Nicene Creed. It's the Orthodox Churches that still hold to a view that is accurately Nicene.Paul Pavaohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03135622914331255065noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-7617098554038727962009-08-09T17:02:17.460-04:002009-08-09T17:02:17.460-04:00This comment has been removed by the author.Benhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16971132944684765473noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-72596931940631336922009-08-09T17:00:03.870-04:002009-08-09T17:00:03.870-04:00This comment has been removed by the author.Benhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16971132944684765473noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-46426814932428353892009-08-07T20:58:26.896-04:002009-08-07T20:58:26.896-04:00Great post Ben! Whats interesting is you know the ...Great post Ben! Whats interesting is you know the Catholic Church takes the Early Church Fathers and loves them like family members because they are family. Threw out 4 corners of this great blue earth there are thousands of Catholic Churches name after Early Church Fathers. In fact my Confirmation name is St.Irenaeus. When you become a Roman Catholic you will learn very soon how intertwine the Fathers are when you hear them in the homilies. When you go to a daily mass and its some Early Church Fathers birthday they will talk about him. St Augstine the greatest Early Church Father is a Saint and a Doctor in the Catholic Church and thousands of Catholic Churches are name after his honor.<br /><br />Compare that to James White " Fathers were not Catholic or protestant they were just Fathers so let them just speak for them self. <br /><br />Its my opinion I dont think most protestant care what the Fathers say they just use them (quote mining)as Sophism.Carmelitehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10044523182742666666noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-23260784020228698852009-08-06T05:32:55.845-04:002009-08-06T05:32:55.845-04:00This comment has been removed by the author.Benhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16971132944684765473noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-9755601473683223472009-08-06T05:27:23.011-04:002009-08-06T05:27:23.011-04:00This comment has been removed by the author.Benhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16971132944684765473noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-22155226134797340332009-08-06T05:24:13.497-04:002009-08-06T05:24:13.497-04:00This comment has been removed by the author.Benhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16971132944684765473noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-81314086542603982712009-08-05T19:50:23.826-04:002009-08-05T19:50:23.826-04:00Excellent, I'm honored. And please call me Dav...Excellent, I'm honored. And please call me Dave! I'm not one for formality in discussion . . .Dave Armstronghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07771661758539438173noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-65604949133331465892009-08-05T19:07:34.001-04:002009-08-05T19:07:34.001-04:00Thanks for your answers, Mr. Armstrong. I apprecia...Thanks for your answers, Mr. Armstrong. I appreciate it and do think you are a brother in Christ. We simply disagree on some points of theology. I will continue to hang around.<br /><br />God bless!bossmanhamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14787721955360743058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-6639255251079104532009-08-05T13:26:45.926-04:002009-08-05T13:26:45.926-04:00I decided to look up Shammah’s Rose Creek Village ...I decided to look up Shammah’s Rose Creek Village to see if it would shed any light on where he’s coming from and what his beliefs might be. It’s apparently some kind of group commune dedicated to isolating itself from the surrounding culture and attempting to recreate its leaders’ understanding of Christianity as it was experienced during the months and years after Pentecost. Shammah holds, or has held, some kind of prominent position in the commune. As far as I can make out, the members often change their names after joining up, taking Hebrew names, and I’ve found criticisms on the internet that Rose Creek Village is a cult, though I’m not sure if those criticisms are accurate. A few ex-members have claimed that back in the 1990s RCV was encouraging belief in fairies and elves. In terms of theology and christology, RCV seems to downplay the importance of the Trinity if not outright deny it, though they affirm that Jesus and the Father are divine (though I’m not sure what they mean when they say that, or if they are even sure what they mean). All in all, RCV looks to have a strong strain of restorationism as well as anti-Catholicism, and doesn’t strike me as a spiritually healthy or balanced community.Confiteborhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17951083063448447552noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-18820951411395801122009-08-04T16:59:41.265-04:002009-08-04T16:59:41.265-04:00Hi Boss,
Welcome to my blog (or at least to comme...Hi Boss,<br /><br />Welcome to my blog (or at least to comments!)<br /><br /><i>I'm a protestant of the Wesleyan-Arminian tradition, but I'm not an extreme anti-Catholic (I'm actually going to be marrying a Catholic).</i> <br /><br />You're likely not an anti-Catholic at all. If you think I am a brother in Christ, then you are certainly not. <br /><br /><i>I had a few questions:<br /><br />Do you think that the RC church, prior to the counter-Reformation, had many deep issues that tainted and blotched the gospel? </i><br /><br />I think there were a lot of ignorant people, a lot of corruption and scandals (which is a recurring phenomenon throughout history), whole schools (like nominalism) that had gone astray and had corrupted the robust Thomism of the high middle ages. I don't think actual Church teaching, however, had corrupted the gospel itself. There simply had to be a revival of what was taught at, e.g., the 2nd Council of Orange some 1000 years before. Luther replaced corruption-in-practice with heretical doctrines that were novelties.<br /><br /><i>Do you think that, while perhaps not a perfect person, Luther did make many valid points that helped Rome reform several things?</i><br /><br />Some of the stuff he critiqued about the abuses of indulgences was valid. The Church did correct this at Trent and afterwards. The teaching was correct, but there were abuses (such as the famous Tetzel: though the nature and extent of his errors has been exaggerated by Protestant polemicists). He had some hand in that, but he also threw out many good things and introduced novelties, so overall it was a net loss; not to mention the sin of schism.<br /><br /><i>I think Trent, to a large extent, was too reactionary against Luther and aspects of the reformation were too reactionary the other way. </i><br /><br />Fair enough. <br /><br /><i>I also think, to an extent, that the reformers and the Catholics at the time talked past each other when it came to justification. </i><br /><br />Yes; I agree. That still happens today, for some reason.<br /><br /><i>Luther did not support the antinomian view, as evidenced when he said, "Faith alone justifies, but not the faith that is alone." And also, "Works are not taken into consideration when the question respects justification. But true faith will no more fail to produce them than the sun can cease to give light."</i><br /><br />Yes; I have a paper that details how he believed that works should go hand-in-hand with faith; it's also part of my book about Luther. So many of us who have studied Luther get that. But many Protestants don't get that we are not semi-Pelagian. And many don't get that we are Christians.<br /><br /><i>I was curious as to what your view was?</i><br /><br />That's a short summary! I hope it was helpful to you. And I hope you hang around and engage in some cordial discussion. I think you'll find the regulars here very friendly.Dave Armstronghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07771661758539438173noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-45071557966043884032009-08-04T15:59:20.497-04:002009-08-04T15:59:20.497-04:00Dave has a good book on Luther I think you should ...Dave has a good book on Luther I think you should get.Carmelitehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10044523182742666666noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-46130096641684200792009-08-04T15:57:04.732-04:002009-08-04T15:57:04.732-04:00Martin Luther became a monk because of a lighting ...Martin Luther became a monk because of a lighting storm and broke his vows as a monk and married a nun that broke her vows and introduce novel doctrines never heard before the history of Christodom. I think he done lot of damage to the unity of Christanity and had a unbalance mind and he misunderstood Catholic teaching.<br /><br />Martin Luther has no credibility at all. St.Augustine of Hippo and St.Thomas Aquinas was not perfect also but they made Christanity stronger they did not try to throw out the baby with bathwater like Luther did.Carmelitehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10044523182742666666noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-53746839804978496412009-08-04T13:50:32.302-04:002009-08-04T13:50:32.302-04:00My arguments are for those that want to experience...<i>My arguments are for those that want to experience the church life that they read about in Acts--real power, real unity, real joy, real family, real sharing, real separation from the world.</i> ***<br /><br />. . . and real separation from the Church. Just what the world doesn't need: yet another new Christian sect, more division and schism.<br /><br /><i>The reason they should accept my take on it is the reason Jesus gave: fruit. What I say comes out of the church life I am part of at Rose Creek Village. What our message produces can be seen; it produces those things I just described. What the RCC message produces can also be seen.</i> ***<br /><br />Yes, it certainly can be seen: the moral and spiritual transformation of individual lives and of whole societies, the furtherance of culture, music, art, and learning. You would have nothing at Rose Creek Village if the Catholic Church's message hadn't been sown and borne fruit in vast abundance long before you and your fellows decided to try and reinvent the Christian wheel. You wouldn't have our Scriptures, you'd know nothing of Jesus.Confiteborhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17951083063448447552noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-48391695459905862402009-08-04T13:36:50.656-04:002009-08-04T13:36:50.656-04:00I'm so glad you know so much about ecclesiasti...<i>I'm so glad you know so much about ecclesiastical history, and that you're so impressed with yourself for knowing it.</i> ***<br /><br />I'm glad I know so much too, even though I'm not at all impressed with myself for knowing it, and nothing I've said can justify your assuming without the slightest shred of evidence that I am. Please avoid ad hominems and stick to the subject at hand.<br /><br /><i>I can only assume that you think I have the same attitude, which I do not.</i> ***<br /><br />I don't assume anything about what your attitude may be. I'm only concerned with the fact that you are prone to misinterpret the historical evidence as you seek to support your theory that the Church established by Jesus "fell" in the time of Constantine.<br /><br /><i>The fact is, you can throw words like "monstrous" around about heresies like those of Montanus and Paul of Samosata, but there is a huge difference between heresies and mass violence.</i> ***<br /><br />Yes, mass violence defaces the image of God, while heresy defiles the soul. Mass violence destroys the body, while heresy kills grace. Both are grievous and deplorable sins, but heresy is more dangerous than physical violence. In addition, violence is not intrinsically evil, quite unlike heresy.<br /><br /><i>Yes, there were Arians among those who caused blood and gore to run into the streets in Constantinople. Nonetheless, the story is about the church of Constantinople, not a heresy, nor some small portion of the church.</i> ***<br /><br />Wrong. That's a total misrepresentation of what Socrates tells us.<br /><br /><i>The fact remains, that Socrates' history is full of violence, intrigue, and politics. Eusebius' history is full of the battle for the faith.</i> ***<br /><br />Which still does nothing to establish your thesis that the Church fell in the reign of Constantine. You're only saying what kinds of events Eusebius mentions and what kinds of events Socrates mentions. You describe the changes in the Church's life and experience as the Church's downfall, but it simply doesn't follow that the awful deeds recounted by Socrates and Sozomen must mean that the Church had fallen.<br /><br /><i>Any reasonable person who listens to our discussion and reads those histories is going to agree with me.</i> ***<br /><br />Not a chance. A reasonable and informed person will see that your conclusions simply don't follow from the anecdotes you highlight.<br /><br /><i>I meant they were pagans; they joined Christianity, and they were never converted, and never received the Holy Spirit. The vast majority of them.</i> ***<br /><br />We have to be very cautious about such pronouncements. Many of them probably weren't truly converted, or their conversion wasn't profound, but it's impossible to judge the souls of people we've never met and know hardly anything about, nor is the evidence adequate to justify a claim that "the vast majority of them" were never converted. We're also in no position to say that they never received the Holy Spirit: the Christian view is that they received Him but through sin alienated themselves from Him. Leave the judging to the Judge.Confiteborhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17951083063448447552noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-20807549339732590402009-08-04T03:14:38.023-04:002009-08-04T03:14:38.023-04:00Dave,
Hi, first time commenter. I'm a protest...Dave,<br /><br />Hi, first time commenter. I'm a protestant of the Wesleyan-Arminian tradition, but I'm not an extreme anti-Catholic (I'm actually going to be marrying a Catholic). I'll confess I didn't read this entire post (I did read much of it), but I had a few questions:<br /><br />Do you think that the RC church, prior to the counter-Reformation, had many deep issues that tainted and blotched the gospel? <br /><br />Do you think that, while perhaps not a perfect person, Luther did make many valid points that helped Rome reform several things?<br /><br />I think Trent, to a large extent, was too reactionary against Luther and aspects of the reformation were too reactionary the other way. I also think, to an extent, that the reformers and the Catholics at the time talked past each other when it came to justification. Luther did not support the antinomian view, as evidenced when he said, "Faith alone justifies, but not the faith that is alone." And also, "Works are not taken into consideration when the question respects justification. But true faith will no more fail to produce them than the sun can cease to give light."<br />I was curious as to what your view was?bossmanhamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14787721955360743058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-40437322685252173612009-08-04T02:12:48.992-04:002009-08-04T02:12:48.992-04:00This comment has been removed by the author.Benhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16971132944684765473noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-23061308582777993082009-08-04T02:09:38.622-04:002009-08-04T02:09:38.622-04:00This comment has been removed by the author.Benhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16971132944684765473noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-54828068534921392652009-08-02T05:11:44.048-04:002009-08-02T05:11:44.048-04:00Contd:
"Is not this to say that truth is soli...Contd:<br />"Is not this to say that truth is solidly upheld in the Church? Elsewhere truth is only maintained at intervals, it falls often, but in the Church it is without vicissitude, unmovable, unshaken, in a word steadfast and perpetual. To answer that S. Paul's meaning is that Scripture has been put under the guardianship of the Church, and no more, is to weaken the proposed similitude too much. For to uphold the truth is a very different thing from guarding the Scripture. The Jews guard a part of the Scriptures, and so do many heretics; but they are not on that account a column and ground of truth. The bark of the letter is neither truth nor falsehood, but according to the sense that we give it is it true or false. The truth consists in the sense, which is, as it were, the marrow. And therefore if the Church were guardian of the truth, the sense of the Scripture would have been entrusted to her care, and it would be necessary to seek it with her, and not in the brain of Luther or Calvin or any private person. Therefore she cannot err, ever having the sense of the Scriptures. And in fact to place with this sacred depository the letter without the sense, would be to place therein the purse without the gold, the shell without the kernel, the scabbard without the sword, the box without the ointment, the leaves without the fruit, the shadow without the body"(The Catholic Controversy,Part I,CHAPTER12).Chakahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12900261170604083615noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-43285124680435685402009-08-02T05:11:10.931-04:002009-08-02T05:11:10.931-04:00Contd:
"Whoever says that this good Father ha...Contd:<br />"Whoever says that this good Father has sent us into this school of the Church, knowing that error was taught there, says that he intended to foster our vice and our ignorance. Who has ever heard of an academy in which everybody taught, and nobody was a scholar?----such would be the Christian commonwealth if the Church can err. For if the Church herself err, who shall not err? and if each one in it err, or can err, to whom shall I betake myself for instruction?----to Calvin? but why to him rather than to Luther, or Brentius, or Pacimontanus? Truly, if I must take my chance of being damned for error, I will be so for my own not for another's, and will let these wits of mine scatter freely about, and maybe they will find the truth as quickly as anybody else. We should not know then whither to turn in our difficulties if the Church erred. <br /><br />But he who shall consider how perfectly authentic is the testimony which God has given of the Church, will see that to say the Church errs is to say no less than that God errs, or else that He is willing and desirous for us to err; which would be a great blasphemy. For is it not Our Lord who says: If thy brother shall offend thee . . . tell the Church, and if he will not hear the Church, let him be to thee as the heathen and the publican (Matt. xviii.) Do you see how Our Lord sends us to the Church in our differences, whatever they may be? How much more in more serious offences and differences! Certainly if by the order of fraternal correction I am obliged to go to the Church to effect the amendment of some evil person who has offended me, how much more shall I be obliged to denounce him who calls the whole Church Babylon, adulterous, idolatrous, perjured? And so much the more because with this evil-mindedness of his he can seduce and infect a whole province;----the vice of heresy being so contagious that it spreadeth like a cancer (2 Tim. ii. 17) for a time. When, therefore, I see some one who says that all our fathers, grandfathers, and great-grandfathers have fallen into idolatry, have corrupted the Gospel, and committed all the iniquities which follow upon the fall of religion, I will address myself to the Church, whose judgment every one must submit to. But if she can err then it is no longer I, or man, who will keep error in the world: it will be our God Himself Who will authorise it and give it credit, since He commands us to go to this tribunal to hear and receive justice. Either He does not know what is done there, or He wishes to deceive us, or true justice is really done there; and the judgments are irrevocable. The Church has condemned Berengarius; if anyone would further discuss this matter, I hold him as a heathen and a publican, in order to obey my Saviour, Who leaves me no choice herein, but gives me this order: Let him be to thee as a heathen and a publican. It is the same as S. Paul teaches when he calls the Church the pillar and ground of truth (1 Tim. iii. 15)".Chakahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12900261170604083615noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-22522193644047334722009-08-02T05:09:50.965-04:002009-08-02T05:09:50.965-04:00St.Francis de Sales wrote in his Catholic Controve...St.Francis de Sales wrote in his Catholic Controversy:<br /><br />"If then the Church can err, O Calvin, O Luther, to whom shall I have recourse in my difficulties? To the Scripture, say they. But what shall I, poor man, do, for it is precisely about the Scripture that my difficulty lies. I am not in doubt whether I must believe the Scripture or not; for who knows not that it is the Word of Truth? What keeps me in anxiety is the understanding of this Scripture, is the conclusions to be drawn from it, which are innumerable and diverse and opposite on the same subject; and everybody takes his view, one this, another that, though out of all there is but one which is sound:----Ah! who will give me to know the good among so many bad? who will tell me the <br />real verity through so many specious and masked vanities. Everybody would embark on the ship of the Holy Spirit; there is but one, and only that one shall reach the port, all the rest are on their way to shipwreck. Ah! what danger am I in of erring! All shout out their claims with equal assurance and thus deceive the greater part, for all boast that theirs is the ship. Whoever says that our Master has not left us guides in so dangerous and difficult away, says that he wishes us to perish. Whoever says that he has put us aboard at the mercy of wind and tide, without giving us a skillful pilot able to use properly his compass and chart, says that the Saviour is wanting in foresight".Chakahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12900261170604083615noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-69620829586060674932009-08-02T02:21:21.179-04:002009-08-02T02:21:21.179-04:00Hey Shammah,
Yeah sorry that was a comment actual...Hey Shammah,<br /><br />Yeah sorry that was a comment actually for Dave he would not what I am talking about.Giovanni A. Cattaneohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06349146033236890779noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-79383283543982448772009-08-01T23:06:47.474-04:002009-08-01T23:06:47.474-04:00This comment has been removed by the author.Benhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16971132944684765473noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-84934519988208415362009-08-01T23:00:54.319-04:002009-08-01T23:00:54.319-04:00This comment has been removed by the author.Benhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16971132944684765473noreply@blogger.com