« People | HomePage | Religion »

02/09/2007

Religion

I'm taken with the passion religion inspires, especially in debate.

I once had such a passion myself, but it died when I realised that no one who was willing to debate would never change their mind about the things they debated. For those ccuk'ers, I used to be one of those theo hacks, arguing with 7 people at once and lashing out with bible verses left right and centre in response to various arguments. Many times in those early days I saw fit to "have some fun" - obviously, at everyone else's expense - and often placed people in a theological conundrum, which saw me thrown out the site many times. For those interested, one of my tricks was to challenge those around if they believed in the NT 100%. The inevitable answer was "of course." Thus, my victim was pretty much hooked. I then informed them they'd have to comply with Luke 6:30 which states "Give to all who ask of you, and do not ask for anything in return of the one who takes from you" and demanded bank account numbers, car keys, cheques, cash and other such things, the implication - often voiced by yours truly - was that if they didn't do as I said, they'd be forsaking their own beliefs...So why should someone like me believe in the NT if Christians themselves didn't?

But this isn't what I wanted to discuss.

Christianity and Islam are interesting religions, but I must admit I don't think much of their attempts to explain why they think they're the only true religion, or why members believe in what they do. For Islam, it goes something like this:

Me> So, why do you think Mohummed was true and not a false prophet, as Christians and Jews have said for over a thousands years?
Puzzling response> He was sincere, as one can tell from his actions and words.

Of course, this is a laughable proof and it actually pains me that there are people who believe this is an acceptable proof of the Ultimate Truth: one man's alleged sincerity. If sincerity equals truth, which is what was being peddled over here, then every politician worth his salt must be straight as the M1 and honest as God Himself. I have no doubt in my mind that when Tony Blair was making the "let's go to war" speech in the House of Commons, he appeared absolutely sincere. I have little doubt that Blair believed everything he said as the absolute truth at the time he said it. "They have weapons which can hurt us. I think" just wouldn't cut it and as politicians will tell you, no wishy-washyness is acceptible, especially not in the big league (ironically, in the rest of the world, someone who changes their views and opinions with the latest facts and information is considered intellectual, open minded, honest and generally clever. In politics, someone who does that is considered "wishy washy" or a flip-flopper, not strong and a silly centrist). But have you read what he actually said?

"I beg to move the motion standing on the order paper in my name and those of my right honourable friends.

At the outset I say: it is right that this house debate this issue and pass judgment. That is the democracy that is our right but that others struggle for in vain.

And again I say: I do not disrespect the views of those in opposition to mine.

This is a tough choice. But it is also a stark one: to stand British troops down and turn back; or to hold firm to the course we have set.

I believe we must hold firm.

The question most often posed is not why does it matter? But why does it matter so much? Here we are, the government with its most serious test, its majority at risk, the first cabinet resignation over an issue of policy. The main parties divided.

So: why does it matter so much? Because the outcome of this issue will now determine more than the fate of the Iraqi regime and more than the future of the Iraqi people, for so long brutalised by Saddam. It will determine the way Britain and the world confront the central security threat of the 21st century; the development of the UN; the relationship between Europe and the US; the relations within the EU and the way the US engages with the rest of the world. It will determine the pattern of international politics for the next generation...."
(to read more, go to "http://politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/story/0,,916790,00.html")

Compelling stuff! Not only does he have a personal stake in this entire thing, but he begs to move the motion! Not only will the decision made that day affect the UK and Iraq, it'll effect the entire globe! This was no small matter. 

But was one man's sincerity enough to conjure the WMDs in Iraq? No. Was it enough to move nations to war? Yes.
The same can be said of Bush.

The point here is, just because someone believes something is the truth, no matter how much they appear to be sincere about it, no matter what they do in acting on that belief (such as declaring war and sending thousands to an uncertain fate) it doesn't mean it is true. If I was in Blair's shoes, I would also wish to appear as sincere as possible. If I was in Mohummed's shoes, I would want people to believe what I was saying, so would be as sincere as ever I could be...otherwise who would follow me? If no one believed me, I wouldn't be much of a prophet and if God didn't speak to me, I'd be entirely deficient as a seer. That would certainly put a crimp in my plans for domination of lands - if I have no believers in my cause, I have none to fight in my name.

Another typical response is "Mohummed could't read or write, so how else did he get the Koran if not directly from God's hand coming out of a burning bush?"

But let me move on to Christianity.
All but one of my readers are Christian, I'm pretty sure you were all waiting patiently to know what I was going to say about Christianity and either read what I had to say on Islam in agreement, or skipped to this bit anxious to get on with it.

The Christian arguments are somewht similar in their nature.

Me> So, why do you believe in Jesus?
Puzzling response>  "I have faith..."

what follows after those three words varies, perhaps an anecdote of how they came to have their faith (God himself spoke to me. I'm a prohpet) or a pseudo-theological answer (he died for me on the cross to attone for my sins), but it isn't relevant. The fact is, they believe as they do because they just believe. They just have faith.

So, what did they do before they had faith?
They took a step into an intellectual void and simply had faith, thus starting the vicious circle of "how do you know you're right?" - "I just have faith" - "but how do you know?" - "faith" which I so love. 

Whilst there are those who maintain that this is indeed a circular argument, I don't agree. The argument can be attacked thusly:

1) What prompted them to take that first step of faith? If the answer is "faith" then they'd be justly accused of having blind faith - making a move based on motives completely devoid of intellect. "But that's what faith is!" No, it isn't. That's what blind faith is. Faith is when you see X, know X is true and lovely and good and well, then have faith it leads to Y. That applies to anything. For example, you have faith signposts on a new road are correct. You don't KNOW absolutely that they are, you just have faith (others may prefer "presume" but it amounts to the same thing) that they are. But it's not blind faith, because it's based on the fact that signposts are usually correct and have been usually useful to you. Of course, you're aware that people may have tampered with it, such as rotating the sign to point in a different direction from the true destination. But still, you have faith.

In such a context, blind faith would be, perhaps, not to have faith in the signs, because you presume/believe/think/have blind faith that all signs are wrong. Why? Faith. But how do you know they're wrong? You just have faith. Maybe they're not wrong? Maybe not - but you have faith they are. But the signs serve millions of other people without harm! That may also be true, but you have faith they're all wrong and you're right, and the sooner they believe as you do, they'll be better off too. And what are the benefits of believing as you do? You never have to worry about wondering whether or not a sign has been tampered with. You never have to think about it in a real life context...you never have to think. Because you have faith! Who needs intellect anyway? That's useful for things like forwarding the Message of the Road Map over that of the devilish Signposts to others, or gaining a deeper understanding of Road Maps over signposts. But to use it to question and, RoadMap forbid, undermine your faith? No no. Also, not knowing anything about the opposing arguments are virtuous. The less you know and the more you have (blind) faith, the better.

So far, this is an attack on the first step of blind faith they took, devoid of intellect. Second attack would be on the continuation of blocking out intellect and rationalisation (you may have heard a religious leader speak of "rationalisation" in negative tones). Third, the lack of change in their stance in a system which they now know for sure to have compelled them to make those two moves in the first place.

If a personal anecdote was inserted, it too is easily dismissed, not just because personal experience hardly mounts to proof of truth (interestingly, Jesus/few followers and Mohummed both had entirely personal experiences, away from the prying eyes of multitudes of witnesses...apparantly God didn't want to cause a fuss), but because the supernatural in a natural world was assumed, whilst the natural explanation was completely ruled out and perhaps not even entertained.

Notice also, just because you have blind faith - or even faith- it doesn't make what you believe in true, no matter how hard one shuts their eyes and wishes it to be so. 

So, what do I believe?

I believe in knowledge and understanding as the springboard for faith, as Deuteronomy says "you shall know today that the Lord is your God."

That should really apply to anything - customer/employee x has proven his reliability in the past, so based on that, you may have faith they'll continue as they have done if something changes (e.g. the boss doesnt come in to work for a day, or you have faith a regular, reliable customer won't break a credit agreement and not pay when the time comes). It may even work in relationships.

So, what's the springboard in Judaism? What's the solid platform of fact? What better evidence than eyewitness report...? It is estimated that between 4-6 million people (fairly conservative figures) witnessed the revelation on mount Sinai. They were then instructed, as the bible says, to relate the events to their children and so and so forth, forever. 

Indeed, I have, somewhere, photos of evidence of the Exodus (availible upon demand) - archaeology unearthed (haha) gold chariot wheels in the likeness as described in the bible, broken in the same fashion. They matched chariot wheels found in a tomb back on mainland Egypt, giving estimated dates. This is in addition to inscriptions found on either side of the Red Sea, placed there (so the inscription reads) by Solomon to mark the place of the point of crossing of the CoI - thus confirming too (if there was ever a doubt), the existence of Solomon. The wheels and inscriptions were found along the same route plotted by some famous bloke in the 1970's that he thought the CoI were most likely to take. Oh, also, the part of the sea they were crossing? Sonar revealed the entire sea had massive "cliffs" hundreds and in places, thousands of feet deep, except between the place the plaques were found, which was actually elevated (so it looked to me) above all the rest.

Whilst this latter evidence just confirms those eyewitness reports, all this is nontheless actual, factual hard evidence. It's independent of the argument that "it says so in my holy book" which is entirely unconvincing and doesn't have an iota of "revelation of God was a personal experience. have faith and if youre worthy, youll realise its true."

Now, time for bed, for it is late.

02:11 Posted in Soul Searching | Permalink | Comments (20) | Email this

Comments

*sits and waits for a debate*

You make some good points deej, as always.

And yes, I did skip the Islam section ;)

Posted by: natalie | 02/09/2007

Natalie, I hope you don't expect me to help provide this 'debate' because that isn't going to happen, although I will say a few things quickly.

1. I didn't skip the Islam section. I read it all. I agreed with it.

2. I agree, just because someone believes something doesn't make it true. DJ, you seem rather keen on repeating this over and over. Just because you believe something is false doesn't make it false.

3. It is good not to rely on personal experiences! I recognize this! Personal experiences should just be the icing on the cake, not what makes you believe in the first place.

4. DJ, if you're going to claim that Jesus is false you have to provide evidence for your claims and a suitable alternative. These are perfectly reasonable things to expect you to provide. You will say that you have, I will say that you haven't. We should really agree to disagree, as this is something incredibly hard to prove entirely to someone.

5. I really like what you said about faith. For a Christian, faith is when they see the OT, know that the OT is true, and see that it logically leads to the NT.

6. I shall try to remember those points you brought up as evidence that Judaism is true, and put them to better use (or blatantly misuse them!) in the future by using them to strengthen my argument for Christianity.

7. That question you used to ask in CCUK isn't really fair. You know that very well.

And that is everything.

Posted by: Nossie | 02/09/2007

Hi mate, i seem to have had this conversation with you at least twice i think, so i will briefly re-summarise my views, which i know you don't agree with and will hate because they are not something that ultimately can be proved or disproved!

As a Christian, I believe that my faith was a gift from God. The NT tells me this in Ephesians 2. I was so sinfully dead to God I needed Him to intervene and give me faith that opened my eyes to his existence, and the reality of my need for Him saviour.

This is not blind faith, as blind faith doesn't know what it it is doing. The whole my faith as a Christian is based on the character of God - who He is. Therefore my faith decisions, actions and beliefs are entirely based on who and what I believe God to be like - kind, good, loving, for me, merciful, faithful and sovereign over all things. My faith isn't blind faith, but faith in a person.

Your definition of faith is correct - the object of my faith is my God. And so far, He's proved Himself to be 'correct!'

I cannot prove this to you, I can only look at how my life has turned out in the moments when I've stepped out in faith, trusting God to be who he says he is. And he always has. If I didn't know God, it would be blind faith.

Every single central tenet of Christianty is ultimately unprovable, and becomes a matter of faith. Walking by faith glorifies God, because it means we do not trust ourselves - we trust in Him. Only then does God get all the glory, and credit, and worship. This is also why I believe God has intended Christianity to be 'unprovable.'

If it was 'provable' which many people would want - and would make my life in ministry and other christian missionaries lifes easier - then straight away our faith would move from God, to the source of 'proof' - our highest authority would cease to be our God, and the thing/person that proves He exists/proves the NT to be inspired/proves the Resurrection. It makes our faith non-God centered and evidence-based. I believe this would represent a subtle change in mindset to an idolatry of intellect - which really is pride. And pride is self-worship.

So if faith is a gift from God, is that unfair towards those He doesn't give faith to? I don't believe it is like that. After all, in the NT Jesus has a conversation with a man and asks him 'do you believe?' And the man replies 'I believe - help my unbelief.' Asking for faith is a biblical prayer that God loves. Because it communicates our total dependancy and need for God, to God. And isn't that how its always meant to have been?

Posted by: Ant | 03/09/2007

Well...oof, this is tense!

Posted by: Bobby | 04/09/2007

Everyone is entitled to their opinions, as you are yours dj, but there is alot of archeological evidence that prooves that jesus was real, scientific to, so i not sure about your comment on believing because we have just "faith" as Jesus is , was ,and will be ,he is everything even the very thoughts in your head.

Posted by: lilmiss | 04/09/2007

Thanks all for commenting. However, I regret I shall not be commenting on comments properly on this occassion.

Ant- we've spoken and shall probably continue to speak about this post.

Nat- nattypoooosssssss!!

Nossie- i shall comment on just points 2 and 7:
2) "I agree, just because someone believes something doesn't make it true. DJ, you seem rather keen on repeating this over and over. Just because you believe something is false doesn't make it false."
No, but lack of evidence isn't a virtue for proposing the existence of something, whilst it is for suggesting it doesn't exist.

7) It is entirely fair. The NT says "do x." You need to do x... if you believe in it, that is. It may be morally dubious, however, I agree on that.

lilmiss- I'd be wary of such "evidence." For example, the Shroud of Turin...which was radio carbon dated to have been made in the middle ages. Just keep in mind that if there really was so much evidence for God, Jesus, Chrsitianity - we'd all be belivers.

Posted by: DJ | 04/09/2007

Every single central tenet of Christianty is ultimately unprovable, and becomes a matter of faith.

Of course, i have to respectfully, though strongly disagree with this assertion. I agree that everything you speak of Judaism in terms of trustworthiness is true.

It is not the that anything is 'unprovable' it is more that is 'unpalatable' and men in their sinful state will not have it. That is why it necessary for faith to be a gift of God.

Moving onto Christianity, aking a historical + religious viewpoint Christianity is Jewish. You ask where the 'hard' evidence is? It's to be found in the old testament, in the Jewish scriptures. All of this points to the Messiah. Jesus testifies this of himself, look through the for the phrase 'It is written'.

For a perfect example of this read Matthew 22 vs 41-46.

So where does 'faith' come in. Faith is necessary. As has been noted it is the object of faith that matters. In the Christians case the object of Faith is Jesus Christ. We trust Him because God vindicated His atoning sacrafice by raising him from the dead. This is how our sin is washed away and true [personal] communion with God established.

For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and goats could take away sins. ... And every priest stands ministering daily and offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. But this Man, after He had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, sat down at the right hand of God. [Hebrews 10 v4, 11-12]

I guess that's enough to state my case! Thanks for blogging a thought provoking article.

Posted by: Matt Turner | 06/09/2007

"Every single central tenet of Christianty is ultimately unprovable, and becomes a matter of faith" - I was not actually the one making that statement! I think you'll find it was Ant.

I am indeed familiar with most if not all the references in the OT which are thought by Christians to point to Christianity. Sometimes I can understand why someone would think that, at others I cannot. But at all times, I feel that a deeper and wider understanding of scripture would preclude anyone from thinking that those references point to Christianity.

As for hard evidence, in order to believe that those references in the OT point to Christianity, I find it would take a presupposed belief in Christianity to accept - so it is not evidence, more a comfortable backing-up for those who are already Christian. If the scriptual evidence was so compelling, there would be no Jews today. As it is, that is obviously not the case.

I am also intrigued by your use of the OT itself as hard evidence - again, an acceptance of that statement would require a pre-supposed belief the OT is true and correct, something which is unfair, therefore, to cite as objective evidence. In the same vein, proof from the NT can hardly be said to be compelling, at least from the perspective from one who does not already believe in it.

I must confess at this point that I am wary of much of what is contained in the NT, not because I disagree with it - perhaps somewhat ironically, I agree with much of what is written and disagree only with the conclusions which the NT asks the reader to take home with them - but because of textual inaccuracies, translation errors in key words, and mistrust of the way in which the Christian bible was compiled.

What better point to show all of which I have spoken than now, with the verses you provided in your post, Hebrews 10 v.v.4, 11-12.

"For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and goats could take away sins." This is not a verse I disagree with. I find this statement completely accurate and at the very least, it is what most of the prophets have repeated over and over in the OT.

"And every priest stands ministering daily and offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins." There is nothing I would disagree with here, except the way in which the verse was written, but that is not my concern. What I am concerned about is why there is no reason provided to explain the statement made. In what I shall call Jewish-OT thought, that reason is because the sacrifices are merely a device which is used to help the attonement process; it is not the end all be all of attonement. Sacrifices count for nothing if sacrifice is the only method of attonement sought. Indeed, the very translation "sacrifice" has an ominous tone to it and I find a more faithful translation would be "drawing near" or "coming closer" [to God] (of course, it makes no sense in English to say "bring a 'drawing near' to God," which is probably why "sacrifice" was chosen) which is indicative of its use as a device to draw nearer to God rather than be the actual end for that desire - for what does God want with slaughtered animals?

As for the matter of faith, all I shall say is you trust him because you believe "God vindicated His atoning sacrafice by raising him from the dead" - belief in that is faith. You cannot prove it is true, I would contend it is not. The only proof you have for this is the word of the NT - which is enough for you, for you already believe in it, but not for one who does not. Therefore, your elements of faith in this particular matter are essentially:

1) a presupposed belief that the NT is true
1a) faith that this particular matter is true, based on belief 1.
2) faith in Jesus, based on those two prior matters you already have faith in.

There are between 2-3 points of faith - faith built on faith - matters here, depending how you arrange it. What I'm trying to say is, you (generic, not personal) don't believe in Jesus because of those things which happened, you believe those things which happened because of your belief in Jesus, which compels you to accept those things as true.

Posted by: DJ | 06/09/2007

Okay, so there is no 'hard proof' for any religion. Just as you cannot 'prove' Christianity or religion to any given individual you cannot disprove it to another. (side note: try disproving darwinism to a darwinist).

With regards to 'if the proof is so obvious then why aren't all Jews Christians?' line of thought. Because the scriptures point out that naturally we don't seek God and love Him. Romans 3 10-18 enumerates some OT scriptures that show that "For we have previously charged both Jews and Greeks that they are all under sin."

Indeed, from a Christian perspective the Messiah's rejection is prophesied in Isaiah. (Ch 53 v 3)
"He is despised and rejected by men,
A Man of sorrows and acquainted with grief.
And we hid, as it were, our faces from Him;
He was despised, and we did not esteem Him."

I think the Jewish interpretation that the 'servant' is Israel *could* hold. At the least would say is that I don't believe it does any violence to the text to apply this instead to the Messiah.

Of course, as a Christian I believe it is the correct interpretation. After all, how has Israel, if taken as God's Servant born anyone's iniquities or justified many?

"...By His knowledge My righteous Servant shall justify many,
For He shall bear their iniquities." (53 v11)

Also, why does the Jewish person have any need to apply it to Israel rather than the Messiah except that it fits the person of Jesus so well? [I would be interested to know what the historical interpretation of this verse is, perhaps it has always been interpreted that way].

Finally i'd just like to ask who you think Jesus was and what your perception of the typical Jewish perspective on Jesus is? I did a quick google (i am at work after all!) At least one article suggests there is no evidence for his existence(http://mama.indstate.edu/users/nizrael/jesusrefutation.html)

Posted by: Matt Turner | 06/09/2007

I would say there is no hard proof for any religion, but some aspects of religion can be proved - at least with Judaism. Archaeological evidence seems to confirm aspects of the bible story to the very detail, as well as confirming that the lineage of King David and Solomon - people whom many academics thought were fictitious people - actually did live (there is seperate evidence for that of King David).

As to disproving Darwinism to one who believes in that, it's an entirely different approach and not fair to compare the two, as both the arguments for and against belief in a biological principle will be grounded in natural fact.

Again, your proof is from the NT and requires presupposed belief in it before it can be accepted. I would say that a relatively large proportion of people who make it their life ambition to lead a completely religious life and who are most familiar with the scriptures, would be a little more honest in matters of their belief: if they found scriptual and external evidence of Christianity to be so compelling, they would change. I know I would (and if you were honest about it and found evidence of another religion compelling I assume you'd change too) - but the problem is, the scriptual evidence gathered in these 2,000 years just doesn't compel me to.

The Jewish interpretation of Isaiah 53 is based on two issues: first, the wider context of Isaiah - which speaks about Israel before and after the portion called 'Isaiah 53,' - and second, the detailed account of the text which you question later in your post.

I shall get to these objections but first, in light of the fact that the portion prior to and after this excerpt is talking all about Israel, can one maintain that the chapters suddenly speak about someone else? Especially as the wider context laments for Israel.

Please note, that this view was in circulation before Jesus was even born and was not "made up in response" to Christianity, as many believe (at the very least, it goes back to c.250CE, mentioned in Contra Celsus).

I probably don't have to tell you the arguments for and against, that "servant" refers to Israel in many portions throughout Isaiah both before and after is. 53, verses which can't literally refer to Jesus, etc.

But I'll discuss with you, instead, this: forget all the Jewish interpretations for now. Let's assume it does indeed refer to the messiah. Who says Jesus was that man? You believe him to be, sure, but upon which basis and what virtue is Jesus accredited with the ultimate sacrifice through the ultimate suffering? Surely others who have been crucified in the past lead wretched lives. Surely any servant or slave of the ancient - and even modern - world had a harder time than Jesus. Sure, Jesus was given a hard time in his days and was eventually killed in a painful manner - but so were so many others, for really bad reasons. Such was Roman occupation. And upon which virtue is blood an attonement for sin at all? Because Leviticus says so? Leviticus tells us many things concerning sacrifice, one of which is blood isn't necessary to attone, the rest of which Jesus little fulfills, even figuratively, so it appears to be a bit of pick'n'mix.

However, you question what further reason there is, beyond the textual explanations briefly outlined above, that those verses should refer to the nation of Israel. The answer is simple: suffering. Why do Jews need to suffer? They don't, but upon a very base level, that is a function of the chosen people. But this now becomes less an argument about the interpretation of isaiah 53, and more upon Jewish thought on issues like collective punishment, suffering for other people's sins, general concepts of reward and punishment - why do good people suffer, the meaning of Job and the like.

I once asked a rabbi in my highschool what the official Jewish line on Jesus was, he replied it was that Jesus did all the things described in the NT (water walking, healing upon touch, water into wine and so forth), but rather than being divine miracles was more the misappropriation of his learning. There is an incident, written about the same time as Jesus lived, that a man named Rabbi Perachya "rejected a student with two hands" - this rabbi was a noted scholar and kabbalist of the time - and it is recroded elsewhere that Rabbi Perachya and this student of his which he later came to reject, were persecuted by Romans, etc. etc. the implication being that this student was Jesus. Interestingly, these passages were censored by the Church (but have been since restored, using manuscripts which survived the purge).

I do not know whether or not these and other references actually refer to Jesus. I feel it could be, hence the censorship, this view may or may not work in conjunction with my own view, below.

My own view is that it is more likely that the Jesus in the NT did not exist as a single person - there appears to be a complete lack of evidence for a single person named Jesus having ever lived, outside of the NT. It is more likely that the NT was based upon someone who may have lived, but not as presented in the NT. I feel aspects of other people's lives have been included (mistakes over Hebrew, compounded by the fact that the Hebrew of "jesus" was a common name at the time), as well as myth-building (the later the gospel was written, the more miracles seem to be associated with him).

Posted by: DJ | 07/09/2007

I commented like... a few hours ago... i think blog spirit hates me.

Posted by: Matt Turner | 08/09/2007

DJ may have deleted it because you won, but I don't think he did because he's a really great guy.

Posted by: Cat | 08/09/2007

pfft. I don't need to stifle opposition through censorship.

Just a little editing.

Posted by: dj | 09/09/2007

DJ, what's all this deleting comments business? What did it say? Even if he was rude, that wasn't very nice of you. Or maybe he just ran round in circles and didn't come across well at all, in which case maybe deleting it wasn't so nasty...

And I will never know, because I never saw the comment. That's annoying.

Posted by: Nossie | 09/09/2007

nossie, never believe anything that comes out of cat's mouth - or fingers - especially when it concerns me. I have never deleted a comment from this blog, ever.

therefore, maybe it wasn't very nice of you to accuse me! aha! I shall expect your grovelling apologies shortly ;-)

Posted by: dj | 09/09/2007

Lol! I'm really, really sorry for this misunderstanding!

Okay, so you didn't delete it. I was incredibly mean to say you did.

I will also admit that I should have been more careful with my choice of words, and therefore apologize once more for my carelessness, especialyl as it was based on Cat's fictitous reports, who I now know is a complete wench. :p

Posted by: Nossie | 10/09/2007

I didn't edit, drastically or otherwise, Matt's post.

Cat's one yes. She'd never say something like "he's a really nice guy" about me - or, I suspect, anyone else.

But i only edit when a commenter on my blog makes stuff up which isn't true and is capable of misleading others... as i'm sure you'll understand now ;-)

Posted by: dj | 10/09/2007

Woo! I love how Cat can say one tiny little thing and everything changes!

She's my favourite stirrer!

Posted by: helen | 10/09/2007

THANKS HELEN!! :D

Posted by: Cat | 10/09/2007

Cat is a genius!

Posted by: Ant | 12/09/2007

The comments are closed.