yayyyyyy God

[Deeps]

Muslims Killing Muslims over being a different type of Muslim

I'm sorry, but is this Iraq thing seem to anyone else irreversably fucked.

It seems that they possibly needed a tyrant in power so that they could all be afraid together, unified in fear of Saddam.

Fucking religion, forever and always a means to remove individual responsibility and thus promote absolute inhumane acts.

Dickheads.

[Dr_Evil_Mouse]

You're sounding like Richard Dawkins .

No doubt there are sincere and devoted Sunnis and Shi`ites who are just as sick of all that's going on right now. The trouble is more, imo, to do with people who are fucked in the head and who express it through religious language and symbols.

[bradm]

You're sounding like Richard Dawkins .

No doubt there are sincere and devoted Sunnis and Shi`ites who are just as sick of all that's going on right now. The trouble is more, imo, to do with people who are fucked in the head and who express it through religious language and symbols.

Or worse, through legislation...

Aloha,

Brad

[afro poppa]

Fucking religion, forever and always a means to remove individual responsibility and thus promote absolute inhumane acts.

Deeps, I think you are over simplifying it. It's more people interepting the religion for their own good, rather than the religion itself being bad.

[The Chameleon]

I have to agree with Deeps. The only way this thing is goping to be solved is for all foriegn forces to leave, allow the country to desolve into civil war and then let a new leader emerge that they can all be dictaed under.

The thing is that democracy doesn't work in that part of the world. Never has.

The ones who are on the bottom/opressed simply want to be the dictators/opressors themselves. They do not want equality they want supremacy.

Harsh? Yes but that's life, no western force has any business being there anyway.

Time to cut and run! For real!

Edited November 24, 2006 by Guest

[Dr_Evil_Mouse]

allow the country to desolve into civil war and then let a new leader emerge that they can all be dictaed under.

Survival of the fittest? Sounds like social Darwinism.

The thing is that democracy doesn't work in that part of the world. Never has.The ones who are on the bottom/opressed simply want to be the dictators/opressors themselves. They do not want equality they want supremacy.

For historical reasons, I don't think that's entirely supportable. It glosses over hundreds of years of experiments in government, both feudal and modern, as well as glossing over the variety of forms of government presently in existence in the different countries.

Shi`a Islam, e.g., has as one of its hallmarks resistance against tyranny and usurped government. The ways in which it's acted against that, though, have covered the spectrum, from mystical resignation through flat-out mass violence. I think the situation is way too complex for us to guess what might happen if we pull out (although my first guess would be Syria and Iran jumping in to take the reins).

It's all pretty fucked up, no doubt about that; with England having declared that they're going to start withdrawal in January, it's only going to get weirder.

[MarcO]

Fucking religion, forever and always a means to remove individual responsibility and thus promote absolute inhumane acts.

That's the single best thing I have ever seen from you. I love you.

[Kanada Kev]

no western force has any business there anyway.

There is TONS of western "business" there right now!! I know where you're coming from, but it was too easy .

Anyone want a copy of "Iraq For Sale"??? You'll soon realize why they want the war to continue. There's simply toooo much money to be made by the contractors, and oil to control.

http://iraqforsale.org/

SICK SICK SICK

[The Chameleon]

no western force has any business there anyway.

There is TONS of western "business" there right now!! I know where you're coming from' date=' but it was too easy .

Anyone want a copy of "Iraq For Sale"??? You'll soon realize why they want the war to continue. There's simply toooo much money to be made by the contractors, and oil to control.

http://iraqforsale.org/

SICK SICK SICK

[/quote']

Sorry I misstyped.

What I meant to tyope was: No western country has any business being there!.

Of course I know there is tonnes of business/monetary interst there.

Either way it's time to go and let social darwinism play out....my 2 cents...

[Deeps]

I thought this might stir some controversy.

Extremism or not I don't think the fools acting in this way are a small amount of the sunni or shi'ite population, nor do I prescribe to the thought that it's just the impoverished.

My Grand-father is reporter, a father, an upstanding member of the community and the mental trauma he inflicted on his kids with his backward views on God and right and wrong could be classified as extremist. He's not blowing anyone up, but he's not far off. This is an upstanding man who has warped the minds around him in pursuit of his version of the truth. Extremism has all sorts of faces is what I'm saying.

The more religious a person is the less culpable they believe they are. God tells them to do everything and well the Islamic God isn't adverse to violence so it serves that the Middle Eastern version of extremism is to blow eachother into oblivian.....lovely....fuck it God told them to do it so I guess it's justified.

Twits.

[The Chameleon]

Deleted due to my bonheadedness of not reading the original story link.

Edited November 24, 2006 by Guest

[Deeps]

Same link that started this thread dude.

Deeps

[ollie]

I think Deeps is driving me to religion.

[Deeps]

Ollie is my religion so now you must die imposter.

[SmoothedShredder]

How does everyone feel about Songwriters who use god or the devil to conjure up imagery, or to convey a meaning? Just a wonderin...

[Dr_Evil_Mouse]

My Grand-father is reporter, a father, an upstanding member of the community and the mental trauma he inflicted on his kids with his backward views on God and right and wrong could be classified as extremist. He's not blowing anyone up, but he's not far off. This is an upstanding man who has warped the minds around him in pursuit of his version of the truth.

Conversely, you could also call, say, Gandhi an extremist, for the way he threw his religious convictions around.

Is there not some better word than something as abstract and overdetermined as "religion" to get to what we're talking about?

How about "conservative religion"? Or does that not quite hit the mark?

[Dr_Evil_Mouse]

How does everyone feel about Songwriters who use god or the devil to conjure up imagery, or to convey a meaning? Just a wonderin...

You mean like this?

You may be an ambassador to England or France,

You may like to gamble, you might like to dance,

You may be the heavyweight champion of the world,

You may be a socialite with a long string of pearls

But you're gonna have to serve somebody, yes indeed

You're gonna have to serve somebody,

Well, it may be the devil or it may be the Lord

But you're gonna have to serve somebody.

You might be a rock 'n' roll addict prancing on the stage,

You might have drugs at your command, women in a cage,

You may be a business man or some high degree thief,

They may call you Doctor or they may call you Chief

But you're gonna have to serve somebody, yes indeed

You're gonna have to serve somebody,

Well, it may be the devil or it may be the Lord

But you're gonna have to serve somebody.

You may be a state trooper, you might be a young Turk,

You may be the head of some big TV network,

You may be rich or poor, you may be blind or lame,

You may be living in another country under another name

But you're gonna have to serve somebody, yes indeed

You're gonna have to serve somebody,

Well, it may be the devil or it may be the Lord

But you're gonna have to serve somebody.

You may be a construction worker working on a home,

You may be living in a mansion or you might live in a dome,

You might own guns and you might even own tanks,

You might be somebody's landlord, you might even own banks

But you're gonna have to serve somebody, yes indeed

You're gonna have to serve somebody,

Well, it may be the devil or it may be the Lord

But you're gonna have to serve somebody.

You may be a preacher with your spiritual pride,

You may be a city councilman taking bribes on the side,

You may be workin' in a barbershop, you may know how to cut hair,

You may be somebody's mistress, may be somebody's heir

But you're gonna have to serve somebody, yes indeed

You're gonna have to serve somebody,

Well, it may be the devil or it may be the Lord

But you're gonna have to serve somebody.

Might like to wear cotton, might like to wear silk,

Might like to drink whiskey, might like to drink milk,

You might like to eat caviar, you might like to eat bread,

You may be sleeping on the floor, sleeping in a king-sized bed

But you're gonna have to serve somebody, yes indeed

You're gonna have to serve somebody,

Well, it may be the devil or it may be the Lord

But you're gonna have to serve somebody.

You may call me Terry, you may call me Timmy,

You may call me Bobby, you may call me Zimmy,

You may call me R.J., you may call me Ray,

You may call me anything but no matter what you say

You're gonna have to serve somebody, yes indeed

You're gonna have to serve somebody.

Well, it may be the devil or it may be the Lord

But you're gonna have to serve somebody.

[bradm]

I think Deeps is driving me to religion.

That's OK, as long as he drives you to the Beer Store first.

Aloha,

Brad

[SmoothedShredder]

Yeah, DEM, I have that song in the back of my head all the time... the more mundane the task, the louder it gets.

[d_rawk]

ollie said:

I think Deeps is driving me to religion.

bradm said:

That's OK, as long as he drives you to the Beer Store first.

[MarcO]

[M.O.B.E]

AmericanThinker.com

November 20, 2006

Pacifism and the Sword in the Gospels

By James Arlandson

Did Jesus endorse and encourage violence in the four Gospels, presumably a righteous kind of violence? Did he call his original disciples to this? Did he order all of his disciples to really buy swords? Two verses may indicate that he did these things.

Matthew 10:34 reads:

34 Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth, but a sword (New International Version, NIV)

And Luke 22:36 reads:

36 [Jesus] said to [the disciples], "But now the one who has a purse must take it, and likewise a bag; and the one who has no sword must sell his cloak and buy one." (New Revised Standard Version, NRSV)

Cited in isolation, those two verses suggest that swords and violence are a possibility. It seems as if Jesus carried and wielded a sword. It seems as if all of the disciples should go out and buy one each. After the death and burial of Jesus, they would have to face the world alone without him, so they thought.

However, what happens to the apparent meaning of the two verses when they are not read in isolation, but in context? Did Jesus really wield a sword and want all of the disciples to buy one?

This article is Part Two in a series on pacifism and the sword in the New Testament.

Matthew 10:34

Scripture must be read in context. As the old saying goes, a text without a context may become a pretext. The context of Matthew 10:34 (in bold font) is quoted in full to explain the meaning of "sword" :

32 "Whoever acknowledges me before men, I will also acknowledge him before my Father in heaven. 33 But whoever disowns me before men, I will disown him before my Father in heaven. 34 Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth, but a sword. 35 For I have come to turn

a man against his father,

a daughter against her mother,

a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law--

36 a man's enemies will be the members of his own household [Micah 7:6]

37 Anyone who loves his father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves his son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me; and anyone who does not take up his cross and follow me is not worthy of me. 39 Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it."

Thus the verse cannot legitimately be used as a call to a military holy war on society. The context, rather, is family relationships. The meaning of "sword" is now clear. It indicates that following Jesus in his original Jewish society may not bring peace to a family, but may "split" it up (Micah 7:6), the precise function of a metaphorical sword. Are his disciples ready for that?

Now we can appeal to the larger textual context. The non-literal interpretation of the sword is confirmed by a parallel passage in the Gospel of Luke.

Luke 12:49-53 reads:

49 "I have come to bring fire on the earth, and how I wish it were already kindled! 50 But I have a baptism to undergo [my death], and how distressed I am until it is completed! 51 Do you think I came to bring peace on earth? No, I tell you, but division. 52 From now on there will be five in one family divided against each other, three against two and two against three. 53 They will be divided, father against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother, mother-in-law against daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against mother-in-law."

The proper way to interpret Scripture is to let verses clarify other verses, particularly parallel passages. And now Luke 12:49-53 confirms the non-literal interpretation of Matthew 10:34. Jesus did not endorse physical violence against one's own family, but he warns people about possible family division.

For more information on Matthew 10:34, such as the cultural context, click here.

Luke 22:36

The historical context of Luke 22:36 demonstrates that for three years Jesus avoided making a public, triumphal entry in his visits to Jerusalem because he understood that when he set foot in the holy city in this way, he would fulfill his mission to die, in a death that looked like one of a common criminal, just as Isaiah the prophet had predicted hundreds of years before (Isaiah 53:12). He needed to complete his work outside of Jerusalem.

Now, however, Jesus finally enters the city famous for killing her prophets (Luke 13:33-34), a few days before his arrest, trial and crucifixion, all of which he predicted. Religious leaders were spying on him and asked him trick questions, so they could incriminate him (Luke 20:20). These insincere questions, though they were also asked before he entered the city, increased in frequency during these compacted tense days. But he answered impressively, avoiding their traps. Despite the tension, each day Jesus taught in the temple, and crowds gathered around him, so the authorities could not arrest him, for fear of the people. Judas volunteered to betray him, saying that he would report back to the authorities when no crowd was present (Luke 22:1-6).

As Passover drew near, Jesus asked some of his disciples to prepare the Seder, the Last Supper. He elevated the bread and the wine, representing his body and blood, which was broken and shed for the sins of the world in the New Covenant (Luke 22:7-20). However, during the meal, Judas slipped out to search for the authorities because he knew that it was the custom of Jesus to go to the Mount of Olives to pray (Luke 21:37), and that night would be no different.

At this point we pick up the textual context of Luke 22:36 (bold print). He is eating the Last Supper on the night he was betrayed.

Luke 22:35-38 says:

35 [Jesus] asked them [the eleven apostles], "When I sent you out without a purse, bag or sandals, did you lack anything?"

They said, "No, not a thing."

36 He said to them, "But now the one who has a purse must take it, and likewise a bag. And the one who has no sword must sell his cloak and buy one. 37 For I tell you, this scripture must be fulfilled in me: 'And he was numbered among the lawless'; and indeed what is written about me is being fulfilled."

38 They [the disciples] said, "See, Lord, here are two swords."

"It is enough," he replied. (NRSV)

The textual context reveals at least two truths. First, Jesus contrasts his ministry before his arrival in Jerusalem with the tense few days in Jerusalem when spies and the authorities themselves were seeking to trap him. But does the tension play a part in understanding why he told his disciples to go out and buy swords? This is answered, below. Second, he says that he would be arrested and tried as a criminal, as the prophecy in Isaiah 53:12 predicted. Does this have anything to do with swords? Do criminals carry them around? This too is explained, below. Jesus may have a deeper meaning in mind than the violent use of the swords. What is it?

The interpretation of the verses can follow either a strictly physical direction in which swords must be used, or a non-physical one in which swords must not be used, during Jesus' last hours. The surest and clearest direction is the non-literal one, but first we analyze why the literal one will not fit into Luke 22:34-38 and into the passage about the arrest in the Garden of Gethsemane (Luke 22:39-53).

The violent use of swords

Jesus says to the disciples to buy swords, but when Peter shows him two, Jesus says they are enough. The first direction, the literal one, is inadequate for two reasons.

First, the obvious question is: two swords are enough for what? Are they enough for a physical fight to resist arrest? This is hardly the case because during Jesus' arrest a disciple (Peter according to John 18:10) took out his sword and cut off the ear of the servant (Malchus according to John 18:10) of the high priest. Jesus sternly tells Peter to put away his sword, "No more of this!" and then he heals the servant, restoring his ear (Luke 22:49-51). Resisting arrest cannot be the purpose of the two swords.

Second, were the two swords enough for an armed rebellion to resist the authorities and to impose the new Jesus movement in a political and military way? Jesus denounces this purpose in Luke 22:52, as the authorities were in the process of arresting him: "Am I leading a rebellion that you have come with swords and clubs?" The answer is no, as he is seized and led away (22:54).

So the physical interpretation of Luke 22:36 (the two swords were intended to be used) will not work in the larger context. Two swords are not enough to resist arrest, to pull off a revolt of some kind, or to fully protect themselves in the Garden of Gethsemane.

The contextual meaning of swords

In contrast to the literal interpretation of using swords physically, the following interpretation works smoothly in context so that all the pieces of the puzzle fit together.

First, Jesus reminds the disciples of his mission for them before he arrived in Jerusalem (Luke 9:3; 10:1-17). Did they need a purse, a bag, or extra sandals? No, because people were friendlier, and their opposition to him was spread out over three years. Now, however, he is in Jerusalem, and he has undergone the compacted antagonism of religious leaders seeking to trap him with self-incriminating words. When the authorities are not present, they send their spies. The atmosphere is therefore tense, and the two swords--no more than that--represent the tension. Jesus' mission has shifted to a clear danger, and the disciples must beware. However, he certainly did not intend for his disciples to use the swords, as we just saw in the literal interpretation, above, for he is about to tell Peter to put away his sword.

Second, "For I tell you, this scripture must be fulfilled in me: 'And he was numbered among the lawless'" (Luke 22:37). By far the clearest purpose of the two swords is Jesus' reference to Isaiah's prophecy (53:12). He was destined to be falsely arrested like a criminal, falsely put on trial like a criminal, and even falsely crucified like a criminal. After all, he was hung on the cross between two thieves, which is also a fulfillment of Isaiah's prophecy (Luke 23:32; 39-43).

What are criminals known for carrying with them? Weapons, and to be numbered among criminals, Jesus must also have weapons. That is why he said that only two swords would be enough--to fulfill this prophecy. Also, Matthew mentions fulfilling prophecy (26:54). If Peter had kept on physically using the sword to prevent Christ's arrest, then his death would not have taken place, so prophecy would have been thwarted. That is why Jesus told him to put his sword back in its place (Matthew 26:52). And in Luke he says to Peter after he cut off an ear, "No more of this!" (22:51).

The third and final non-literal interpretation says that Jesus frequently used physical objects (seeds, lamps, vineyards, coins, lost sheep and so on) to teach non-physical, universal truths, and the same is possibly true of the two swords. This interpretation is supported by Matthew 10:34: "Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth, but a sword." As we have seen, above, in context, he does not mean a literal sword that divides the family, but a spiritual and moral one. And it is precisely Luke who clarifies Jesus' meaning of "sword" as non-literal in the two parallel passages. If Luke does this in 12:51, then why not in 22:36-38?

Early Christian history

The foregoing interpretation of the non-physical use of swords does not say that the two swords did not exist (verse 38). They are not mere symbols, nor were they imaginary or invisible. Peter really did cut off the ear of the servant of the high priest with one of them (Matthew 26:50-51; Luke 22:49-51). Also, Jesus said to Peter in the Garden, "Put your sword back in its place," meaning, back in its scabbard or holder or in Peter's belt or another article of clothing. He never said to throw the sword away, off to the side at a distance. Therefore, it is entirely possible that some disciples carried them after the crucifixion and burial when they lived in hostile territory, and maybe some did after the Resurrection and Ascension.

However, later reliable tradition says that none of the apostles fought or even tried to fight their way out of fiery trials with swords, as some sort of misguided, twisted, violent martyrs. Instead, tradition says that all of the original apostles but John were martyred as a direct result of persecution (John died from natural causes in old age). Evidently, the example of Jesus throughout his life and in the Garden of Gethsemane made an impression on them.

Though this is an argument from silence (drawing conclusions from what a text does not say), it is a significant silence of the historical records that speaks volumes. As we shall see in future articles, this silence will have the support of words.

Summary

The events in the Garden of Gethsemane and the commands of Jesus there teach the apostles nonaggression. He said to Peter: "For all who draw the sword will die by the sword" (Matthew 26:52). Peter and the others heard those words that clarify the use of swords. Therefore, a lifestyle of the sword must not be part of the disciples' new walk with the resurrected Christ, as they preached his message of hope.

As I concluded in Part One in the series, Jesus waged kingdom or spiritual warfare. He preached the kingdom message. And the Church must follow its Lord in waging only spiritual warfare and preaching only the kingdom message. And this much is bedrock: the Church--as an institution--is never permitted to spread the gospel or to impose personal righteousness by the sword, for Christ's kingdom is not of this world (John 18:36).

So only in this sense is the Church--as the Church--a pacifist body. That is, ecclesiastical leaders do not convene a special council and general assembly to vote on raising an army or militia in order to wage war. Rather, its warfare is only spiritual and moral (Ephesians 6:10-20 and 2 Corinthians 10:4-6). Thus, the Church and the State must never be fused together.

But the Church, by its nature and purpose, is commanded to exhort, teach, guide, and counsel the government about the ways of God. The Church proclaims peace, or it may counsel a just war, depending on the circumstances. If the Church were to teach only pacifism, it would violate its own Scriptures (Romans 13:1-7). But the Church and the government are the not same.

So if the Church as an institution is not permitted to have an army and to wage war, are individual Christians permitted to join the military and law enforcement of the State, according to the New Testament? Yes, and that complex question is answered more fully in future articles in the series. For now, applying Matthew 26:52 is sufficient. "All who draw the sword will die by the sword." Clearly, that timeless truth in context refers to criminals, rebels, and revolutionaries. Whether the cause of revolutionaries is just or unjust, they (and criminals and rebels) use weapons, so they are at risk of dying by such weapons.

However, lawful soldiers and police officers also place themselves at a higher risk, more than average, law-abiding citizens do, who do not have to use weapons. This does not mean that lawful soldiers and police officers are on the same level as criminals, rebels, or revolutionaries--far from it. But the servants of the State, working in the two God-ordained institutions of the military and law enforcement (Romans 13:1-7), must be forewarned of the danger and risk before they follow their noble careers.

This theme will be repeated throughout the series: Jesus teaches that the kingdom of God and the kingdom of Caesar are different and distinct. He did not purpose to reestablish the theocratic kingdom of Israel (Acts 1:6-7).

The Church as an institution (also distinct from the kingdom of God, which creates the Church) is "pacifist" in its own actions and internal policies because it follows the commands of the kingdom of God, his active rule and dynamic reign. The Church must wage only spiritual warfare. Thus, church leaders in the name of the Church or of God should never convene a council or general assembly in order to raise an army to fight battles and to coerce heretics and opponents to conform.

Rather, the mission of the Church, waging only spiritual warfare, is to save souls, teach believers, and help the needy in practical ways, not to bloody and kill people with swords. And it continues its true mission to this day, turning the world right side up.

For other translations of the Bible, please click here.

James M. Arlandson may be reached at jamesmarlandson@hotmail.com

[Dr_Evil_Mouse]

The first reference was one typically used by David Koresh to justify the Branch Davidians' stance towards the government.

How he reconciled that with Romans, though, I have no idea.

I've always seen those comments by Jesus intelligible within a pacifist framework as metaphor. Paul flattens all that out, though; if there was one book I wish had never been included in the canon, it would have been Romans. Paul should be an embarrassment to all self-respecting civil servants.

[afro poppa]

The more religious a person is the less culpable they believe they are.

Dude that is quite the big over generalization. For SOME people yes, they do feel that they are less responsible for their actions because they feel they are carrying out God's master plan. HOWEVER, for many, religion makes people think they are MORE culpable for their actions. That is where karma and all that comes from. Or "do unto others as you want them to do unto you"

Some people are use religion in evil ways, some people don't. Just because some people do, doesn't make religion as a whole bad. Religion gives hope to the hopeless, etc. I am not trying to convert you or anything, but you have this jaded view of it when there are always two sides to every piece of paper.

[d_rawk]

I've always seen those comments by Jesus intelligible within a pacifist framework as metaphor. Paul flattens all that out, though; if there was one book I wish had never been included in the canon, it would have been Romans. Paul should be an embarrassment to all self-respecting civil servants.

Heh. I'm also on record as being ... I'm not sure if the right word would be 'cautious' or 'annoyed' ... about and by Paul. (And Luke 22:36 - quoted by M.O.B.E above - for that matter. I remember asking you, DEM, for your interpretation of it, once upon a time)

I've softened on him a bit, though. Not least for reading some of the 'New Perspective on Paul' type scholars/writers and coming to the conclusion that a lot of what bugs me about Paul (being responsible for that dreadfully dull faith vs. works debate, for one!) might be more a result of my having let one certain type of reading of Paul dominate the discourse. I'm less and less convinced that the things that bug me so much about Paul really have to do with Paul so much at all, and that with the larger historical and cultural context in which he was writing taken into account, his arguments might be much more subtle than what we (or at least I) normally allow for. (Too optimistic?)

What I'm really finding endearing about Paul now is his style. He will sometimes mix 3 or 4 metaphors in the process of trying to spit out one single thought. And he seems to not for a moment consider that doing so might hinder, in some way, the ability to come to any sort of understanding of what he's trying to say. That may be a regular stylistic feature of the times ... I'm not sure. But it certainly seems an eccentric way to write a letter!

It's all (Paul's stylistic bent, I mean) rather comedic to me, really, and I'm finding my frowns at Paul's 'Paulishness' turning into wry smiles at his 'Paulishness', instead. Much to my delight. Sure his jumbled metaphors may be responsible for such strange interpretations - all these years later - as "the rapture" (shudder) or that life is just what we do on our way to a "heaven" or a "hell" (shudder again). But it is all kind of cute. Some of it is pure gold.

(Speaking of rapture, Wright tackles the contemporary popular "Left Behind" reading of Paul's words from first Thessalonians in his very consise Farewell to the Rapture. It's brief, thankfully, but unfortunately not as playful as he can get once he's got a beer or two in him)

An example of what I'm on about -- Paul says (1 Thessalonians 5): The thief is coming in the night, so the woman is going to go into labour, so you are the children of light, so you mustn't get drunk, but you must put on your armour. (Paraphrased, obviously).

That's brilliantly entertaining.

Which passages in Romans did you have in mind, I wonder?

(One of these days Bouche's hand is going to be forced, and there will have to be a heady religion forum)